From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 06:42:42 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:42:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601064242.006b4674@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI first object At 06:24 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >>1. To put into practice the fact that we are all parts of one universal >human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, >class, or color. > >>[Suggested revision] > >>TI members please comment - ALL members! > > >Sounds good. What about the word 'universal'? Isn't that a bit pompous? >Is 'one human family' not a sufficient expression, suggesting an inclusivity >of all humans (if not, then what about 'worldwide human family'?) > >Martin > > Alexis comments: Martins suggestion re: "universal" is an excellent one. Homo Sapiens, or humanity, is limited to this one planet. Pretending to universality is a bit exaggerated, we have enough trouble on planet Earth. I strongly support Martin's suggestion. From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:34:42 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:34:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601083442.006ac6fc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI first object At 11:49 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >This is getting silly. We will all be in devachan before we get this >settled. Why not make the TI first object: > >To put into practice the fact that we are a part of humanity without regard >to external or social distinctions. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck; That's brilliant! Let's go for it! Alan..are you looking? alexis From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 1 22:58:44 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:58:44 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: TI first object Mime-Version: 1.0 Suggestions and/or agreements trickle in. Not enough replies yet for any kind of consensus. Maybe I will try and do a kind of "digest" of comments received in a short while and post to theos-buds. All comments so far sent in seem to have been received - yours is not forgotten! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From cv576@freenet.carleton.ca Sat Jun 1 04:03:00 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 00:03:00 -0400 From: cv576@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Guenen) Message-Id: <199606010403.AAA06696@freenet6.carleton.ca> Subject: Help! Could somebody please tell me how to unsubscribe from this list? PLEASE and thank you!!! -- Donald Guenen - cv576@freenet.carleton.ca May you Dwell in the Light! From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 02:12:46 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 22:12:46 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606010414.AA15265@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Are we all in agreement? >Please be tolerant, and respect the opinions and religious views of all >the list members! > >Thank You - > >John E. Mead jem@vnet.net roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 02:27:57 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 22:27:57 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606010430.AC15438@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: >Since it's original formation in July 1993, Theos-L has been a >discussion list created not to divide, but to unite the members >John E. Mead >jem@vnet.net >76220.131@compuserve.com > Perhaps those who do not respect this idea could have the decency to unsubscribe? Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Jun 1 11:43:07 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:43:07 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601114307.0069f658@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Chuck: >Joe Sixpack is exactly who the founders had in mind. >Right now the TS is a debating society for people who know more about >sanskrit than about living and it has damned little that relates to >everyday life. We can speak of Theosophy for the millions, but that's only one aspect of it. It can be applied to social reform, to changing the everyday lives of people in general. That work is fine, but it is something that anyone can do. There's another important work, and that involves the preservation and carrying forward of the theosophical doctrines, as a living tradition. That work provides an opportunity for people, when they feel the attraction, to draw closer to the Mysteries. Carrying forward the doctrines as a living tradition, there needs to be people that have learned them and made them a part of their lives. These people provide an opportunity to pass on an understanding of the philosophy that cannot be approached simply by reading books. >We are about to see Theosophy for the Millions. Just wait until we can all >post to the newsgroup (with any luck I will solve a problem with my com >program and be on in couple of days) and the newsgroup gets hundreds of >postings a day, most of them from people who are decidedly not theosophists. But what is it that you or I have to *offer* the millions? Are we firmly established on the Path, and actually expecting to draw *millions* to find the way? Can we do what great teachers haven't? I don't think so. On a more basic level, if we're simply dealing with social work, with political reform, with adjustments to the external lives of people to make things a bit more peaceful and harmonious, we certainly could do this. But so could Christians, Buddhists, Marxists, Humanists, Spiritualists, and Anarchists. There's nothing special to the theosophical doctrines that is needed to do this work. >We can't hide in our little holes anymore and content ourselves with boring >each other to death with rounds and chains. There is a huge world out there >that needs us and if we cannot make ourselves relevant to them, they will go >somewhere else. We are about to come blasting into the world and that means >that we are going to have to talk about practical applications of what we >know. But we've never been hiding in holes. We talk in one language to joe sixpack, and in other languages to people of other backgrounds, in other contexts. In a theosophical class, intended for students of Theosophy, it's right and appropriate to study the doctrines and to work on new inner realizations and insights. This is not elitism nor ignoring suffering humanity. We have individual ways to grow and develop in life, and we express our special natures to the world in our own unique ways. Some people may express themselves as politicians. Others as artists, educators, scholars, scientists, etc. None of these approaches is wrong, unless an individual has not found what is right for him, and is doing something that his heart feels is wrong. It's wrong, I think, to judge the value of someone's contribution to the world in terms of quantity, in terms of numbers of people affected. The measure is in terms of how true someone is to their own heart and inner calling. This is something that others cannot tell; each of us has to look within and be our own judges. I agree that some superficial aspect of Theosophy, something with a theosophical flavor to it, would have mass appeal, and do good for the millions. But I'd hope that for people ready for something more, that we don't close the gate to the teachings, to the esoteric philosophy, hiding or obscuring the public availability of the teachings. >Hang on. It's gonna be a hell of a ride. It'll be wild. This type of work is good, as good as any other, and I wish you well with it. It's not the only show in town, though, so don't start tearing down posters for the quiet, still, unseen attractions that a few people of deep heart slip away to attend. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Jun 1 12:20:04 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 05:20:04 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601122004.006bf870@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: T.S. in a Rut Bjorn: >>I'd agree that it is in a rut. But I think that the problem is >>that it stops short of being a spiritual organization, of making >>some living connection with the Mysteries. It remains a book >>study club, and does not serve the spiritual needs of its >>members or its community. >Seems like you see this clearly. Perhaps it is likely to remain a book study >club. To transform it to an organization that would serve the spiritual >needs of its members would take a new impulse from the sponsoring masters. >If that occurred, it would probably not be recognized as such by the >leadership, or a majority of the members, so, what can be done? The burden, I think, is upon the individual members to take responsibility for their lives, and to approach the spiritual themselves. They have to get something going in themselves, in order to become in touch with the work of the Masters, and make their lodges and theosophical groups living centers of the spiritual. The books contain various terms, concepts, ideas. Behind the dead-letter of the books are buried significant esoteric doctrines. Working through to the jewels and nuggets of gold under the surface dross, we can become ennobled and start to tread a valid approach to the Path. Things like leadership of the theosophical group, its organization and structure, etc. are all superficial, and insignificant. What's important is our giving expression to the high, the holy, the sacred, the most spiritual side of life. There is much that does not exist in the world, simply because there's no one ready and able to give it expression. The Masters, I think, work to express in the world these same higher qualities. They're more adept at doing it than we are. I tend to think that we are individually responsible for making our own spiritual impulse in the world, and don't need to wait for one from the Masters to give us a shove. Our connection to the spiritual is inward, direct, immediate, and does not need someone outside ourselves, even Masters, Bodhisattvas, or Buddhas to power us and keep us going. (This is not to say, though, that there's no value to having a Guru. Having a spiritual teacher is highly important, at times, depending upon our karma, needs, and current lessons in life.) -- Eldon From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 03:58:25 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:58:25 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606010600.AA16595@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Thank you Eldon! Your appearance on the seen gives me some hope! You are talking from your heart and from an inner realization. And you are touching on very central issues. What theosophists have become is what people are going to associate with theosophy. Bjorn > >There's another important work, and that involves the preservation >and carrying forward of the theosophical doctrines, as a living >tradition. That work provides an opportunity for people, when they >feel the attraction, to draw closer to the Mysteries. > >Carrying forward the doctrines as a living tradition, there needs >to be people that have learned them and made them a part of their >lives. These people provide an opportunity to pass on an understanding >of the philosophy that cannot be approached simply by reading books. > roxendal@alpinet.net From martinle@lainet.com Sat Jun 1 06:00:44 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:00:44 -0700 From: martinle@lainet.com (Martin Leiderman) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: to Chuck & Alexis Please brother and sisters I repeat my statement about Alexis and Chuch. I simply send their e-mail to my wonderful Mac's trash. On the other hand, I do enjoy reading theosophical comments, ideas, and opinions . . . even though I do not contribute almost anything, let me tell you some of your ideas I had shared during my lectures and meetings in various Lodges and Study Groups. Please do not get discouraged for the jokes, silly lines of Chuck and Alexis emails. simply delete them without thinking . . . It is call VIVEKA, in sanskrit defined as Nitya anitya vastu viveka ha ( to discern the between what is from what is not). Plato was very emphatic on this subject of personal censorship, it is intelligence at best, to build a good and positive environment. Your brother Martin Leiderman, a theosophist in LA From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 06:49:06 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:49:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601064906.006b831c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 06:49 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >The post below is an example of the kind of discussion that has taken up a >majority of the space on this list since I joined recently. Since this is a >public list we have to assume that people who are seeking spiritual >nourishment now and then sign up in the hope of finding something that can >help them on their path. The word "theosophy" carries a promise of >enlightenment. > >Since this is a Theosophy list with many knowledgable and intelligent >members, it is only natural for a new list member (such as myself) to see >the discussions as SOMEWHAT representative of "Theosophy" in general. If the >intention was to cause maximum damage to the reputation of Theosophy and >theosophists, I could not design a better strategy than what is now being >carried out by a few dominant list members. > >Bjorn > >At 02:59 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> >>You know of course that if you had lived during Blavatsky's lifetime you'd >>have called her an "atrocious one" or a "kickfighter"! I do suggest that it >>might be polite if you'd "butt out' of what is obviously a personal >>continuing conversation in a jocular vein. You don't have the faintest idea >>what the continuing conversation is all about so why impose upon it? If you >>had even a faint idea why Paul Johnson is upset with Daniel Caldwell or why >>I am upset with Liesel F.Deutsch you'd have some grounds to discuss it. But >>you don't so, I repeat, why impose yourself when you have no knowledge of >>the causes or situation? >> >>alexis >>> Alexis comments: I strongly stand by what I wrote above. Bjorn wrote a totally uncalled for comment to Chuck Cosimano in regard to one of his "one liners", suggesting that Chuck belonged in Montana with the "other unabombers and trouble makers", so I told him he was rude, and I still think he's rude, and that what I wrote was entirely appropriate. There are getting to be all too many self-appointed censors on this list. It's a shame. >> >> >> >roxendal@alpinet.net > > > From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 06:56:45 1996 Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:56:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601065645.006bc9a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Therapeutic Touch At 07:12 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Oy! I got the password from Ripco, but now my old com program is doing weird >things and I can't seem to get to it. I have a call in to my computer expert >and hopefully she can fix the problem. >And then, comes the revolution! >Poor Bjorn. I don't think he has much experience with Americans and of all >the ones to start with...! > >Chuck the Atrocious >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Michael got me a new way to get to it today and when he's around tomorrow I'll attempt it. He's going home to Guernsey on Monday. We just couldn't find him a job without a legitimate immigrant visa. The biggest problem is that he's a truly expert tech supports person with 11 years experience but no degree. In England it doesn't matter, but you know the U.S. I can't wait to get the access to the alt. theosophy. It seems to me that there are all too many self-appointed censors around here and too many people who feel that somebody appointed them as arbiters of the words and thoughts of others. I have always, and will always do and say exactly what I think is right for me to do and say, and I will always speak the truth as I see it. If others disagree, that is of course their right. But it is not my problem. There is some positive movement in the house situation. Nothing final, but things are looking up. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:15:32 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:15:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601071532.006bfbe4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? At 07:12 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Well, you remember what I heard in reference to the senile one at the '86 >convention. >By the way, have you had a chance to visit the world's best website >http://home.earthlink.net/~boogienation/psionic.htm > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: What in heaven's name does "boogienation" mean? I copied the address down and will access it tomorrow. John brought home some kind of fancy tech gadget and he's going to copy my hard disk onto tape tomorrow too. I really spend almost no time "cruising the web", between writing, and researching, and painting, and caring for my counseling patients, and corresponding with some three hundred students around the world, and Shamanic work, and playing with Denali, I just don't have time to "Play on the Web" and read too. I just got a new AIDS patient and so I'll be busy with him for a while. Considering what an gawd-awful son of a bitch some of the people on this board think me, I get a lot of good stuff done. I'll bet you and I between us do far more actual good in the world than all the people who brag about being "Chelas of the Masters" put together. Old Joseph G. MIller (The Zen Roshi and Sufi Murshid) always told me that my primary function was to be a spiritual catalyst, though he actually said "spiritual shit disturber", and I am certainly following his predictions. Shame you never met him, you'd have loved him. He was the President of the San Francisco Lodge for many years. He was also a very good friend of Grady Mc Murphy. He called John and I and our special friend Jay "The Unholy Trinity". Oh, as you suggested I skimmed Jinarajadasa's "First Principles of Theosophy" this afternoon. To quote Dorothy Parker...."Tonstant weader fwowed up!" The racial stuff is incredibly bad! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:21:55 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:21:55 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601072155.006bd370@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Will the real Masters KH and M please stand up At 07:13 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Worse than read it. Gerda and I have a friend who lives near Olcott and is a >member and he is a devotee of Lizzy Prophet. He had us over to his place to >see a video of her and it was ridiculous! The woman is a con artist and her >followers are imbeciles. It was all Gerda and I could do to hold off >laughing until we got into the car (he is a friend after all) and then we >both were literally doubled over for ten minutes at least. >I haven't done that since I had club business that took me into a store for >cross-dressers and I barely managed to keep a straight face there. >If poor Bjorn believes in that garbage, he is going to regret being on this >list real quick. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: Oh I agree. Do you know about old man Ballard and his wife (they started the "I am" Movement) and he went to jail for swindling altogether too many little old ladies out of their pensions. Had some problems with his wife too. I am amazed to find that there are people who actually respect the man,but perhaps he's one of Lizzy Prophets "sources". Bjorn apparently believes in his garbage too. But remember, Bjorn is a "Chela of the Masters", so we should bow down before him. Fat chance! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:25:50 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:25:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601072550.006a0b38@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Seniles At 07:13 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Ignore her! All you are going to do is raise your blood pressure and people >will complain about you wasting bandwidth (whatever in Szandor's Purple Hell >that is). >Anyway, if she gets on alt.theosophy Col. Aquino will eat her for breakfast. > I may send him a private e-mail asking him to post. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >Agent Provacateur for the Dark Forces >(Duck Lizzy, here comes another one!) > >Chuck: Do that very thing! Aquino is a really intelligent person. I am sure he and I won't agree on too many things (because I've read all of the "Temple of Set"material) but I am so anxious to disagree with someone intelligent for a change. Of course he may surprise me and I him. What a hoot if Aquino and I ended up agreeing! You know the more I think about it the more I think you ought to invite him to join Theos-list too. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:32:48 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:32:48 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601073248.006af614@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Earl Grey Council At 07:14 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Well, maybe northern Sweden is like Montana. Anyway, I find that roast Chela >is very tasty if served with a light wine sauce and just a hint of thyme. >Why is it these damned foreigners (oh boy, is Alan going to have a British >cow over that one, sorry Alan, you know who I mean) keep thinking that they >can get away with trying to control speech? Don't they remember why we >virtually closed down UNESCO? >Americans go to war over this sort of thing. > >Should I nuke him? > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >Chela to the Master Ahriman (Chief Dugpa of the Earl Grey Council) > American's sure do! But lately I've noticed a whole bunch of americans that want to limit free speech too. (especially yours and mine). Admittedly the Internet is just that, "An International Net" but you know and I know that American's will never stand for limitations on freedom of expression! UNESCO got in trouble for their policies vis a vis controlling news media. Someday Non-American's will finally understand how totally monomaniacal Americans are in regard to personal liberty and freedom of expression. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:42:20 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:42:20 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601074220.006b7fa4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Please stop this At 08:13 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<< >>> >>>Anymore than it makes you right, and I have facts on my side. >> >>No Liesel it's you who need to grow up and you don't have that much time. >>alexis >> > >Alexis - your bottom line above I find difficult to read as anything >other than cruel, and fond as I may be of you, I hope you will withdraw >it and apologise. > >Alan :-( >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: You're quite correct I was extremely angry and spoke without thinking but desiring to hurt. I withdraw the "bottom line" and truly apologize for it as I was sorry I said it the moment I pressed the "send" button. However, that does not effect the fact that I am still very angry with Leisel as she ignores everything I say and do except that one thing. My comments about Leadbeater. But they are facts, and all of the evidence is on my side of the argument. And I do not believe the van Gelders are being truthful on this subject. They are far too personally involved with the man. If one has to admire or ignore Leadbeater to have some kind of relationship with Leisel, I will forgo the pleasure. When, not if, theosophy goes down the tubes it will be primarily CWL's fault. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:44:18 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:44:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601074418.006aa13c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Will the real Masters KH and M please stand up At 08:24 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960531080648.006c5194@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>sometimes I >>wish we could go back to the rigid exclusivity of the real Mystery Schools! >> >>alexis > >Please don't join the E.S. > >Alan :>( >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan my friend, of all the impossibilities in the cosmos, that is the most extremely unlikely! But then, it's NOT a mystery school, just a place for the massaging of egos. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:52:40 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:52:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601075240.006af8a8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations At 08:26 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<< >Mea culpa - I have not paid yur opus the attention it deserves. I will >go to the section you metion and read up your comments. Before so >doing, I would mention en passant that my own opinion (to date) is that >there never was a "sect" of Essenes per se in the sense that the >Therpeutae seem to have been ... but I anticipate. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Alan: I don't thing it's proper to call the Theraputae a "sect" either. They were a community or sodality of like minded people. I do believe they provided the initial inspiration for the people who became the Essenes who were also a community or sodality of like-minded people. The Theraputae were folks who took to the Deserts beyond Sais to escape the monstrous sink of decadence that Egypt had become by that time in history. I think we're going to have some lovely talks on this subject. You do agree that Pythagoras's Krotona Sodality bore very strong resemblances to the theraputae. I find it also very intriguing that the most modern research links Pythagoras with the Celts and Druids. Have you seen this research? I am going to send you a personal post on a subject that involves the psychic. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 07:54:31 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:54:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601075431.006a09f0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations At 08:33 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, > >I will continue the discussion about your view on reincarnation and karma. >It requires a bit more time than usual to prepare some suitable >questions. But I'm working on it and expect it to be finished within a couple >of days when I have more leisure. > >Martin > > Martin: I will happily await your convenience, and equally happily continue the discussion at any time suitable to you. I am more than familiar with the problems of finding time to do all the things one needs and wants to do. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:15:24 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:15:24 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601081524.006b7f8c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations At 08:37 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Nicea was 325 c.e. - that's a lot of years. All the N.T. material dates >from this period, along with a vast amount of other writing, including >nearly all of the gnostic material. I have always found the Gnostics to be far too dualistic for my personal comfort. I am, as my book makes clear, a total monist. > >> The >>primary problem I have with Post-Nicean Christianity (other than my usual >>problems with oppression and repression, power, control, and profit) is it's >>absolute obsession with sin and evil. That, I believe, has done so much harm >>that nothing at all can compensate for it. Christianity Alan, has just done >>too much harm for me to either condone it or forgive it. Of course an obsession with "sin and evil" is part of the dualistic view. But as you surely know it's not as a philosophy that I totally reject Christianity, it's as a political and social force that I reject it, and it's as a political force that it has done all its tremendous harm. > >Listen, Sunshine :-) I am not making a defence of Christianity, or to be >more precise, Churchianity. I am trying to say that what developed into >"post-Nicean" Christianity (and even, here and there, later >developments) *contained* and still contains some esoteric or "mystery" >teaching - quite a bit, in fact. Alan my question is this: I agree that Early Christianity contains valid mystery teachings. Cannot one find that same esoteric teaching elsewhere? I'm sure you know ther's nothing at all original in Christianity and all of it's esoteric or mystery teachings were taken from others. So why not take the good from a less tainted source? Church-wise, I am a heretic and an apostate, and would have been burned a long time back had I lived in a >different age. Alan, there's another thing that's wrong with Christianity. They'd have burned you, they'd never have burned me! In-search-of-truth-wise it is another story. I cannot >help but think sometimes that your hatred of Christianity (which I can >fully understand) clouds your objectivity? Alan: I freely admit to an immense animus against not simply Christianity but the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic Triad (which I see as more monolithic than most), but as regards the search for truth, it is my very strong perception that it can be found elsewhere more strongly, and less problematical. If one seeks esoteric truth, and I have spent most of my life so doing, why "grub about in the muck" when one can find it elsewhere? Do you see what I mean? If Christianity possessed some esoteric truth that was unique to Christianity I would view it differently, but, you will "surprise and amaze" me if you can prove that Christianity possesses one single esoteric truth that cannot be found elsewhere. > >Xtianity and Judaism contain, between them, a great deal of written >material, some "canonical" and more "apocryphal". Don't throw the baby >out with the bath water! Oh believe me Alan: I never have, and never will, throw the baby out with the bath water. Read the section on Judaism too > >My favorite example (which I regard as a discovery, though I am probably >not the first to have noticed it over the centuries) will be posted for >your consideration in due course ... >> >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > Alan: I await that message with baited breath. No Kidding. Some pretty famous theologians have tried to change my mind but no one has yet presented me with any definite evidence. I used to have long and enjoyable tete a tetes with John 23rd and he actually shocked and amazed me by largely agreeing with my views. In fact, many of my present views result from his work with me. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:21:18 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:21:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601082118.006c8204@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Therapeutae, etc. Alan: It's now 1:19 A.M. I have pushed the "save as" button, and I will deal with this very long message when I am fully awake. It looks like an interesting discussion. sorry, good night alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:27:06 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:27:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601082706.006c3c8c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Therapeutae, etc. At 10:26 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Alan, please be careful. You are starting to sound like me! Asking >for sources and citations? Asking for "backup" info to support a claim? > >I think I remember that Alexis said in a response to Jerry HE that his >book would NOT >have footnotes, endnotes, etc. etc. > >Daniel > > >Daniel: I certainly did! I will not have citations a quotes and things in my books because I want people to read them. Not just Librarians! The thing to remember is that scholarly books don't sell! Sensational books do! And that is my goal. Now as to alan's request, of course I will give him sources where possible. They won't BE in the book itself but I'll gladly discuss where I got my points with Alan. I both like and respect him. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:28:23 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:28:23 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601082823.006b05a8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 11:45 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Martin, >You certainly may. > >Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker >I don't think I've ever done kickboxing, with psionics count? > >Chuck: I hate to look ignorant, but WHAT is "kickfighting" or "Kick boxing"? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:32:50 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:32:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601083250.006adf78@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 11:48 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Bjorn, >You will be hearing from Alex shortly. Flame retardant armor is recommended. > >But seriously on this. The list runs in cycles. We get very serious and >scholarly for a while then we get burned out on that and have some fun for a >while and then we get serious and scholarly again. >Part of creating a nucleus of universal siblinghood is learning to get along >with each other despite our foibles and some of us are more open about them >than others. I like to make jokes and Alex likes to snarl. In the meantime, >there is more to people than philosophy and if this list corrects one of the >big, huge problems the ts has, namely that people in it rarely know each >other very well, than it will than more have served its purpose. > Theosophists are humans with human problems and human failings. We eat, we >drink, we bleed, we laugh, we mourn and on this list we have often done it >together. It has allowed me to make new friends (and a few new enemies) and >renew old friendships as well. And if I pick on you it's all in fun in the >hope that you'll laugh at your own foibles as I laugh with others at mine. >You're in a different culture here. Relax and learn to enjoy it for what it >is. After all, you wouldn't expect to hear Wagner at a rock concert and the >internet is as raucous as it comes.. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuckie: I don't like to "snarl" it just comes with the genetics and with my totem, that and flames through the nostrils are par for the course. I don't snarl all the time, only when I mean it. Sometimes I just lash my tail and lower my ears alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:33:25 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:33:25 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601083325.006ce5d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 11:47 PM 5/31/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Now now, let's let Martin have his fun too. Besides, we can nominate him for >something later. > >Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA >Have you seen the web page yet? > >Oh can we Daddy...goodie! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 1 08:36:58 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:36:58 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960601083658.006c1bf8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Help! At 12:03 AM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Could somebody please tell me how to unsubscribe from this list? > >PLEASE and thank you!!! > > > >-- >Donald Guenen - cv576@freenet.carleton.ca > > May you Dwell in the Light! > >Donald: Send a message to: Listproc@vnet.net no subject line..... message: signoff theos-l your very welcome alexis d. From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat Jun 1 14:20:31 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 12:20:31 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB4FB4.DB3F7FE0@x.dko.global-one.dk> Subject: Re: planes Encoding: 90 TEXT Kay: >HPB writes that linga-sharira is related with spleen, so i think >her linga sharira or astral body is CWL&AAB's "etheric body". >Sinnet directly writes in "Esoteric Buddhism": "Third principle is >astral body, or linga sharira, it's etheric double of physical body". I must say that I accept the concept of AAB - that the physical body possess etheric tissue of greater importance than the gross body and that this constitutes the etheric body. The astral body would still be the etheric double (with double being the key word here). Such an etheric body would explain for example the "phantom" pains of people with amputated limbs. It would serve as the recipient of prana (through the etheric counterpart of the spleen) - (I understand perfectly your line of reasoning here). It would also explain the statement that the (gross) physical body is not considered a principle (the real principle would be the etheric body). The linga sharira is described as the vehicle of prana, but prana would exist on all planes and vivify all principles. Linga itself is a force (and the word is generally used alone when discussing consciousness) and linga sharira is the sheath or body of this force. My discussion with JHE may take the direction of a complete analysis - the above is mere casual remarks - (it is terribly time consuming). >K.H.'s kama-rupa should be an astral body of CWL and most other people. >Sinnett writes that "animal soul" is 5th principle in letter #32 >and M. doesn't critisize it, but in "Esoteric Buddhism" Sinnett >writes: 4. Animal Soul - Kama-rupa. (Chapter II). >Footnote below table says that this set of principles is improved >relatively to previosly published in "Theosophist". :() >Note that Sinnett has only one Manas (5-th principle), not divi- >ding it to "rupa" & "arupa". I accept another concept (explained in detail on p. 260 ff. of "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire") - that the enumeration of a mans principles is dependant on his level of evolution. In other words: the various classifications may explain various states and levels of evolution. This would explain the differing classifications (some of them differing beyond any correspondence). Krishna in Bhagavad-gita doesn't >divide manas, too, but there's only 5 principles. HPB in vol. 3 >of SD divides it to higher & lower and comes more closely to >the CWL's system: > HPB CWL > [atman] Atman > Buddhi Buddhi > [Buddhi]-manas Arupa-manas > Kama-manas Rupa-manas > Pranic Kama Astral [correspondence ot these two > Astral Etheric was explained above] > Objective Physical I rarely try to make the correspondence that exact. But here I would probably conclude that CWL used the gross physical as a principle (not as a mistake but rather as a veiled explanation) and completely left prana out of consideration - and that the objective body of HPB would correspond to both the etheric and physical of CWL. These differences are trifling and could just as well be observed between the various classifications of HPB. >From above follows that founders & mahatmas widely experimented >with a set of principles, and this set probably wasn't "ready" >up to the time of writing "TD", so we shouldn't dogmatize infor- >mation on principles published in TD. Or that the principles depend on level of evolution. >Summarizing this, i colclude that CWL/AAB system seems to me more >appropriate. Note that on each "odd" plane live to bodies and on >each "even" plane lives one. It helps to overlay this system to >5-fold (Atman, Buddhi, Manas, Kama of Bh.G.) + physical body. >Atman should be here "2-fold", too, but because it's both "personal" >& "impersonal", i think. And because i cannot apply logic to matters >that are higher than manas. I must say that I use both the principles enumerated by HPB, TSR, Sinnett or Besant/CWL/AAB without any sense of deeper conflict. And just as you do, I use ancient sources to corroborate it (I love the BG). I have yet to find an classification (in the sources I accept) that cannot be satisfactorily explained and made to correspond with the other classifications without making any too fantastic interpretations. I find it very enjoyable you - with your obvious interest in the philosophical aspect of theosophy - have found your way to Theos-l :-) In friendship, Kim From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 1 13:40:44 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 08:40:44 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960601084259.26cfc392@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TSA Voting Tally Update Hi Here is an update on the subject. The following letter was FAXED to John Algeo. Will keep you informed when I hear from him. ...Ramadoss ======================================== FAX MESSAGE June 1, 1996 8:15 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America Wheaton IL ELECTION VOTING TALLY Dear Bro. Algeo: It is now two weeks since this subject issue is being corresponded. It is almost a week since I Faxed you a long letter explaining how you should have no problems in sending me the information since the IL law is very clear on the issue of access to TSA information. While the unrestricted disclosure of voting tally is not going to alter the results of the election, unrestricted access to the voting tally data addresses the very fundamental issue of member's access to TSA books and records. If you agree that IL law applies to TSA, then I should have received the information requested by FAX which has not happened so far. If you think that IL law does not apply to TSA, then you should explain in very simple language why, so that we ordinary members can understand? Do you think that this is an unreasonable request from a member in good standing of TSA? On these simple matters, I think everyone expects a quick and fast response. So I am still waiting for (1) quick action from you and (2) to receive the voting tally details by FAX expeditiously. With fraternal greetings Yours fraternally M. K. Ramadoss Member TSA FAXCC: William Greer, National Secretary From RIhle@aol.com Sat Jun 1 15:04:30 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 11:04:30 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960601110429_405101479@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions Bjorn writes> >I am new to this list and am shocked at the level and type of discussions >going on here. I am also a student (chela) of the Masters and can't see that >this list serves the cause of the Brotherhood. I would suggest that the list >owner either > >1. cut off the most destructive participants > >or > >2. close the list > > Richard Ihle writes> Belated welcome to you, Bjorn! Let us somber Swedes (my grandparents are from Varmland) stick together, at least, against all these other more fortunate genetic types on the list who ~naturally~ smile, talk, touch one another, etc. . . . My compliments to you for quick apprehension of the basic problem on theos-l: what to do about individuals who seem to be unwilling and/or unable to put a personal limit on how damaging they will allow themselves to be to others. My opinion on this seems to reverse itself every other day: On the day someone tells an older lady she is senile and does not have much time left to live, I say, "We simply must get rid of someone who is so cruel." On the following day when the person apologizes, I say, "No, it would be a great impoverishment of the list to lose such a valuable contributor." What to do? I'm sure I don't know. In a way, the whole situation almost reminds me of Edward Bulwer-Lytton's novel VRIL (it has been several decades, so don't depend on the following details) where universal amity was accomplished by having people carry around "vril-rods" by means of which they could easily destroy one another any time they wished. Since everyone had one, nobody used them; therefore, the people behaved themselves. Yes, sometimes this seems just like theos-l--with the unfortunate difference that a few individuals seem to have picked up on the fact that the majority on the list are simply not willing to be as personally destructive with the vril as they might be just to win an argument. The old story: the more gentle at the mercy of the less gentle again. What to do? I'm sure I don't know. Welcome, anyway, brother Bjorn. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 15:45:13 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 11:45:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601114513_208318221@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? Alan, Uncle Chuckie is honored to be in the running. Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 14:20:04 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 10:20:04 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606011622.AA19491@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Discussions The question of democracy and free speech is relevant. And, just to make my position clear - I am all for it. Some people on this list seem to confuse Democracy with the right to mentally and emotionally abuse anyone who says anything they don=B4t agree= to. This is NOT democracy. If anything, it is Anarchy. It is clear to me and many others on this list that this state of affairs is not necessarily "Demochratic" nor an expression of "free speech". The effect is to shock and scare away constructive and loving people from the list - most are not willing to take the kind of abuse they are being subjected to here, for no good reason. People are turning away in disgust and the cause of Theosophy - Universal Brotherhood - is given a blow in the belly. In the minds of many people "visiting" this list, Theosophy is going to be forever associated with CRUELTY, INTOLERANCE and INSANITY. With a couple of individuals tyrranizing just about everybody else, without any restraint whatsoever, we have a situation of OPPRESSION, not freedom. These individuals are abusing the opportunity of lawlessness to impose their own law of the gun on everyone. The majority of people who have some moral standards and a legitimate interest and need to discuss matters of a more or less personal nature (having to do with the spiritual path) will not say a word because they do not want to be ridiculed and abused as soon as they express themselves. There is a VERY ACTIVE censorship on this list right now. The question is not whether or not there is going to be censorship - the question is whether or not it is going to be exercised by people like Chuch and Alexis, who seem to be motivated by a need to hurt their sisters and brothers, or by a list owner who upholds the standards of brotherhood and tolerance. At mankinds present stage of evolution democracy does not work without rules. The list owner is hiding behind a let go attitude, although the founding principles of this list - tolerance and respect for various beliefs - is constantly being violated in the most shameless fashion. This makes the list owner a part in a karma making process. Failure to uphold a minimum standard of decency and civilty is not furthering the cause of freedom, it is inviting a wild west condition where the fastest and biggest gun rules. This has happened on this list and will result in many more"nice" people turning away in disgust.=20 Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 14:20:07 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 10:20:07 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606011622.AB19491@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions At 11:06 AM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Richard Ihle writes> >Belated welcome to you, Bjorn! Let us somber Swedes (my grandparents are >from Varmland) stick together, at least, against all these other more >fortunate genetic types on the list who ~naturally~ smile, talk, touch one >another, etc. . . . Nice to meet you, Richard. Yes I am from Stockholm, Sweden, although I have lived abroad for 10 years. >Yes, sometimes this seems just like theos-l--with the unfortunate difference >that a few individuals seem to have picked up on the fact that the majority >on the list are simply not willing to be as personally destructive with the >vril as they might be just to win an argument. The old story: the more >gentle at the mercy of the less gentle again. An interesting way of describing the dilemma. >What to do? I'm sure I don't know. Well, if the list owner refuses to take action, decent people will move on and leave the wolves to eat each other. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From fami@mail.telepac.pt Sat Jun 1 17:15:23 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 17:15:23 GMT From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Arag=F5es?= Message-Id: <199606011715.RAA27184@mail.telepac.pt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: help getting address Hi : I've been lurking for some months. I'm not a member of any Theosophy Society Section. I'm portuguese and I'm interested in "Theosophic architecture" and "Atlantis Architecture". Sometimes it's difficult for me read all the messages in this list but I make an effort to be on day because I have a little memory in my computer and I can't keep many messg. I am not participating a lot in discussion because 1) I'm learning with it 2) some matters like voting are not in my primarly interests 3) in the subjects of my interest, when I learn enough, I'll participate if I can. I'm writing to you all now, because I'm very interested in contacting an american architect/theosoph called Robert Stacy-Judd, that I think, lives in Los Angeles, California. Here in Portugal is difficult to get his address (email or not) Could anyone help me with that ? About the Portuguese Theosophical Society I don't know much, once that I'm not a member. Well, thanks a lot in advance. I'll be in touch, Fatima From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 1 19:22:34 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 14:22:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Discussions In-Reply-To: <9606011622.AA19491@alpinet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > The question of democracy and free speech is relevant. And, just to make my > position clear - I am all for it. >>>>>mega clip >>>>>>> I am also a subscriber to another list - listening-l where J Krishnamurti's philosophy is discussed. That list is also unmoderated and the list owner Dirk is rarely seen, just like John Mead. That list also goes thru cycles of never ending arguments and comes back again. Looking at the similarities, it is very clear that we are dealing with an entirely new medium of communication and so what some see as problems are just builtin inherent nature of the medium. To bring Democracy with its "rules" is no no. If anyone does not like this or any other list, they can easily make the choice of either lurking or unsubscribing. If some have exercised their choice, it is ok. It is their gain or loss which ever way they perceive it. Try to bring controls either implicitly or explicitly will only shut down this list. And many of us do not want to see it. BTW are you a member of TS (Adyar) or any other organization and which lodge/branch you belong to. I am just curious. You can answer if you want to . ....Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 1 19:28:34 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 14:28:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Discussions In-Reply-To: <9606011622.AB19491@alpinet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > At 11:06 AM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> clip >>> > Well, if the list owner refuses to take action, decent people will move on > and leave the wolves to eat each other. > > Bjorn > > roxendal@alpinet.net A lot of decent people are on this list and some are posting and others are lurking. The theosophical "wolves" are kind, considerate, loving domesticated ones and don't like to eat each other. The wolves outside are worse. .... Ramadoss From borges@mendota.terracom.net Sat Jun 1 15:29:34 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 14:29:06 From: "Raul Ortegon" <"Raul Ortegon"@mendota.terracom.net> Message-Id: <199606011932.OAA20756@mendota.terracom.net> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Discussions Could post the name of the newsgroup, please? On Sat, 1 Jun 1996 15:24:16 -0400, m.k. ramadoss wrote: >On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > >> The question of democracy and free speech is relevant. And, just to make my >> position clear - I am all for it. >>>>>>mega clip >>>>>>> > >I am also a subscriber to another list - listening-l where J >Krishnamurti's philosophy is discussed. > >That list is also unmoderated and the list owner Dirk is rarely seen, >just like John Mead. That list also goes thru cycles of never ending >arguments and comes back again. > >Looking at the similarities, it is very clear that we are dealing with an >entirely new medium of communication and so what some see as problems are >just builtin inherent nature of the medium. > >To bring Democracy with its "rules" is no no. If anyone does not like >this or any other list, they can easily make the choice of either lurking >or unsubscribing. If some have exercised their choice, it is ok. It is >their gain or loss which ever way they perceive it. > >Try to bring controls either implicitly or explicitly will only shut down >this list. And many of us do not want to see it. > >BTW are you a member of TS (Adyar) or any other organization and which >lodge/branch you belong to. I am just curious. You can answer if you want >to . > > > ....Ramadoss > > ------------------------------------- Raul Ortegon borges@terracom.net "To not believe is NOT to disbelieve." ------------------------------------- From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 1 19:31:14 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 14:31:14 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: help getting address (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Here is a person trying to get hold of a Theosophist who may be a member of TSA. See if you can help. ...Ramadoss > Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 12:19:34 -0400 > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Arag=F5es?= > Subject: help getting address Hi : I've been lurking for some months. I'm not a member of any Theosophy Society Section. I'm portuguese and I'm interested in "Theosophic architecture" and "Atlantis Architecture". Sometimes it's difficult for me read all the messages in this list but I make an effort to be on day because I have a little memory in my computer and I can't keep many messg. I am not participating a lot in discussion because 1) I'm learning with it 2) some matters like voting are not in my primarly interests 3) in the subjects of my interest, when I learn enough, I'll participate if I can. I'm writing to you all now, because I'm very interested in contacting an american architect/theosoph called Robert Stacy-Judd, that I think, lives in Los Angeles, California. Here in Portugal is difficult to get his address (email or not) Could anyone help me with that ? About the Portuguese Theosophical Society I don't know much, once that I'm not a member. Well, thanks a lot in advance. I'll be in touch, Fatima From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 1 22:43:09 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 00:43:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606012243.AAA04385@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Alexis> You know of course that if you had lived during Blavatsky's lifetime you'd have called her an "atrocious one" or a "kickfighter"! Martin comments: you use the word 'of course' quite often in your postings. Is this supposed to add weight to your utterances? Alexis>I do suggest that it might be polite if you'd "butt out' of what is obviously a personal continuing conversation in a jocular vein. Martin comments: 'jocular vein', really.. Is it perceived so by Liesel? And whence this sulky posting of yours if it concerns only 'jocular vein'? There is evidently a contradiction between tone and content here.. Alexis> You don't have the faintest idea what the continuing conversation is all about so why impose upon it? If you had even a faint idea why Paul Johnson is upset with Daniel Caldwell or why I am upset with Liesel F.Deutsch you'd have some grounds to discuss it. But you don't so, I repeat, why impose yourself when you have no knowledge of the causes or situation? Martin comments: Before you were a subscriber to theos-l I was at least two or three times so, dropping out after certain periods for various reasons. I'm quite aware of the Paul Johnson - Daniel Caldwell debates and ditto with the debates regarding Leadbeater. So, I *do* know about it, actually more than I would like to. I will say one thing however, and it is this: even if you're right about Leadbeater (Jerry H-E has in the past mentioned some documentary evidence regarding the 'Leadbeater case'), even then it is far wiser to take someone's [substitute: Liesel] feelings into account and not try to put your idea's through someone's throat. This person will probably vomit and it might just end right in your face.. (an ugly picture, but a psychological truth). Don't you think you might actually accomplish more if you would be a little more considerate at times? A basic thing is having respect for each other, and I suspect that you DO have respect 'even for Liesel' despite the comments you were exchanging. I have (and hate it) to be nitpicking on this point because this respect is not sounding through very much in your posts (the same would probably be true for Liesel regarding you - I would have to trace back all the posts even before I subscribed to this forum this time to be more definitely here) Can't you show a little more of that to her? Friendly, Martin Euser From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 1 22:43:18 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 00:43:18 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606012243.AAA04400@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Alexis> There are getting to be all too many self-appointed censors on this list. It's a shame. Martin comments: Freedom of speech is a very good and necessary thing indeed. As with all freedom, however, it is imperative that people learn to operate within certain self-imposed boundaries, having to do with the rights and freedoms of others. Why is it that so many Americans are obsessed with their *rights*? Do they still have to learn their *duties*? One's duty may be the 'right' of the other, isn't it? Alexis>I have always, and will always do and say exactly what I think is right for me to do and say, and I will always speak the truth as I see it. If others disagree, that is of course their right. But it is not my problem. Indeed. But that's not the issue here (except for the Leadbeater case). The issue is, or rather has become: personal attacks on each other. Sure you are wise enough to not belief that anything good comes from it. Why continue or react, as the case may be? (I subscribed but a couple of days ago to theos-buds and didn't see much of the previous quarrels there) Anyway, I'm glad you withdraw your remark about Liesel as Alan rightly requested. Again to this 'self-appointed censor' thing. It sounds as a hollow phrase to me, because it is used too often by you (and Chuck sometimes). You're not dealing with kids on this list, but with grown-ups who *do* have some standards of behaviour.. Maybe you will have more success with this style of communicating on alt.theosophy (if there are many young people on it), but this style is often contra-productive on this board. You *will* have noticed that by now, I presume? Now, having said this, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in your *ideas*. In fact, I'm going to discuss your views on karma and reincarnation thoroughly with you, if you can stand severe scrutiny and dissecting of your opinions on these things. Martin Euser From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 1 22:43:24 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 00:43:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606012243.AAA04408@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Ruminations (Alexis-Martin); Long post! Continued discussion on karma, reincarnation and religion between Alexis and Martin (Euser). Brackets [], inserted in your previous reply, indicate questions or comments by me. Martin> >One point remains a bit obscure to me, and that's your view on reincarnation. >You say on p. 24, that 'death isn't (a recurring incident)'. Alexis>No, it isn't Martin Euler [Euser] will die but once, because Martin Euler [Euser] as an individual will live but once. Martin comments: as a persona [mask, outer vehicle] yes Alexis> As I see it it isn't individual personalities [lower four principles?] that "reincarnate" but rather the intrinsic (to the Cosmos) evolving never-physical immortal intelligence [jiva?] that incarnates serially but not consequentially [i.e. as a consequence of previous incarnations of this jiva?]. In other words the intrinsic spirit manifests itself by way of a physical intelligence [brain-mind?] and learns and expands it's awareness by way of that manifestation. In the course of that manifestation, the physical personality (Martin Euler) becomes an energy field (force field) in being. Energy once created is never lost [right], ergo, when the personality "dies" (by which I mean leaves the physical shell) it continues as an energy-field-in-being and is therefore a independent spirit in its own right. Martin comments: Are you referring to the lower four principles here or what? Alexis> What it is, however, is what was the mediating factor between the Intrinsic Evolving Intelligence [jiva?], and [between jiva and what?] I call that the Virtual Intelligence entity. It probably best corresponds to metaphysics's "Higher Mind", or at least that's the thing that comes closest to it. Martin comments: This independent spirit in its own right, that's what you would call Manas, the fifth principle? If so, it is consistent so far with the view of HPB and GdP, I think. Martin (previously)>You explain this by saying that an individual human >being continues as >an independant spirit in it's own right in the 'post-mortem' state. Martin: actually I had in mind to ask you *explicitly* whether this individual human being that continues as an independant spirit in its own right *reincarnates* or not. Does it manifest in a persona, does it take a lower set of four principles again in order to reincarnate or not? Does this independant spirit have anything to do with the previous tencencies it had in its vehicle (persona) in its last incarnations, *if* it reincarnates?If not, what happens to these previous tendencies, characteristics (on earthly, astral, mental planes)? Martin (previously)>One of the questions one could ask is: what about karma, what about the>effects of deeds that are not yet equilibrized. How else then by reincarnation >could these effects or consequences be settled? Please explain to me! Alexis> That's a good question and of course I can see why you'd ask it. But, I must respond by saying that I have a different view of Karma than that which is taught either by Theosophy or Brahminism or Buddhism. The problem as I see it is that the universe doesn't function in a retributive manner and by any other name "karma" is retributive. Martin comments: HPB speaks of Karma-Nemesis. But I don't believe in some great being who punishes the poor sinners either, BUT I *do* believe in an intrinsic corrigating intelligence , which is essentially one's Self.. Alexis>The universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical state is going to have more than an attitudinal effect on their future. Martin comments:What about an Adolf Hitler? Will there be no correction for this perverted 'intelligence' ?? Can we learn all our lessons in one lifetime? We can develop only a small part of all our potentials in one lifetime. What about little children who die ; surely the spirit of these children will reincarnate? So much to learn.. Alexis>A person, because of the things that they do, and because of the way that they think, and because of WHAT they think, create an environment that colours and flavours their personal future. Agreed. Alexis>But that is the way an individual influences their post-mortem future, [and where may that be? couldn't that be on earth again?] it has nothing at all to do with the universal intelligence field. Martin comments: This seems to dismiss all notion of the interrelatedness of cosmos and humans. When I say that ethics is built-in in the structure of the universe, how do you react then? Alexis>There is no judgement, there is no retribution, "seeking of equilibrium", there is only a milieu that every individual creates for themselves. Martin comments:and what are the factors that play a role in this creating a milieu for themselves? You say: energy is not lost, and that's true, so what about the energy of a deed on earth that impresses itself on the astral light, what about the tendencies of the Manas pertaining to this earth? That's energy too. What happens with it? I submit that only by having one's mind fixed in a state of consciousness that is beyond the working of the 'pairs of opposites' (conform the Bhagavad Gita) one is able to neutralize and equilibrize all tendencies set up, evoked in interaction, etc. on this earth. If one cannot do that one will inevitably be drawn back to this earth, psychomagnetically drawn to an appropriate environment, appropriate for the reincarnating entity. As long as the thirst for life on this earth is not finished one will be drawn back to it. ALL the grand philosophies, including Plato's, Pythagoras', Buddha's, etc,etc. affirm this. You will have to do a lot of explaining before it will satisfy my mind. (not that the current theories of karma and reincarnation explain everything - these theories are far from complete, I think, but that's a totally different thing for now) Alexis>The only think that matters, the only thing in the universe that matters, is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it processes and stores information, that is critical. That's what the Universe is all about, the infinitization of intelligence, and the processing and storing of information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid. All information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful to the universal data-bank. Martin comments: if you include the perception of love, growth of love for all beings, sure. This spawns another question: how long does this growth of love, of perception of unity continue? This question has to do with the concept of evolution and the nature of initiations. An intricate question in my opinion. Alexis>What an individual human being does with their personal information data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter in the slightest, within the universal paradigm. Martin comments: but there are vast layers between a personal paradigm and the universal paradigm, like family and group paradigms, national paradigms ('freedom of speech' :)). It seems that you totally ignore the consequences of one's actions on others. After all, one doesn't live alone in the universe. It surely mattered to the Jews what Hitler did with his personal paradigm.. Alexis>Now as to "reincarnation" as the intrinsic evolving intelligence manifests serially but non-consequentially, each succeeding manifestation, and I must emphasize that they are not inter-connected except by way of the Intrinsic evolving intelligence [Jiva, not Manas I take it], is, nonetheless, a consequence of all the previous manifestations and so is "flavoured" or "coloured" by them. But each of them is unique and individual and so is the "last in line". "Karma", to me, is simply one of religion's "little control mechanisms". It's a way to make people "behave" according to the dictates of religion and more important than that, the dictates of the people that run the religion. Martin comments: in theosophy we (at least I do) have a different view of karma. It is not something *outside* oneself. That would be absurd indeed. It is inside onself but has to do with the interconnectedness of all beings. One Akasha penetrates all, and holds all information, BUT this information is individualized within each being. Martin (previously)>Also, how would you account for the vast differences between people, unequal opportunities, if not by karma? Alexis>Well, of course there's the incarnational process I just described, there's genetics, there's environmental factors, and things like Nationality and Ethnicity and skin colour, but most of all, it's "the roll of the dice". People don't like it, I know, and would rather believe they were born blind to pay off some old debt. But I am afraid that's not it, some people who are born blind, are that way because their Mother had syphilis. Martin comments: this last example pertains to my mentioning that the theories on karma and reincarnation are not completely exposed in theosophy or any system whatsoever. You can add babies from heroine-addicted mothers, Softenon-babies, etc. The 'roll of the dice' theory seems a bit too mechanical to me however. If such accidents happen, I would rather think of some recompensation in another life. 'Roll of the dice' is inherently injust. Where does this leave the idea of justice? Do you throw that away? Martin (prev.)> >Now, about religion, that's quite a story! I agree that most of religions >have become a bit of an empty shell. But what about finding the esoteric >meanings of what's left of value in them? What do you think about that? Alexis>I have spent more than thirty years in the second object pursuit of the study and comparison of this planet's religions. My conclusion? They are ALL utterly empty shells.such esoteric meaning as any of them may once have contained is long lost, and everything of value is lost with them. Martin comments: so, you dismiss Blavatsky's writing about esoteric meanings in religions. She has spend a mighty lot of time on that: Isis Unveiled, Secret Doctrine, Key to Theosophy, and other writings as well. Alexis>Religion today has only one series of goals,that is the attainment and maintenance of power, control, and profit, over and at the expense of those who accrue to the religion in question. The human race would be well shed of the lot of them! Martin comments: you confuse what *people* do with religion as a legitimation for the power/control games with religion itself. There's a mighty difference in that. Alexis>They are unorthodox, but they are my views. I take total responsibility for them. Martin comments: I bet you do! These are some starting questions only. Fasten your seat-belt! It will be a tough drive.. Martin From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 1 22:33:45 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:33:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <1JEzQFAJVMsxEw6i@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Will the real Masters KH and M please sit down again In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960601074418.006aa13c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960601074418.006aa13c@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>Please don't join the E.S. >> >>Alan :>( > >>Alan my friend, of all the impossibilities in the cosmos, that is the most >extremely unlikely! But then, it's NOT a mystery school, just a place for >the massaging of egos. > >alexis > I didn't really think it likely. Another pathetic attempt at humor down tha pan ... 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 Jun 1 22:34:38 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:34:38 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <255zMKA+VMsxEw4p@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ruminations In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960601075240.006af8a8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960601075240.006af8a8@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I am going to send you a personal post on a subject that involves the psychic. > >alexis I look forward to 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 Jun 1 22:32:12 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:32:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Please stop this In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960601074220.006b7fa4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960601074220.006b7fa4@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >You're quite correct I was extremely angry and spoke without thinking but >desiring to hurt. I withdraw the "bottom line" and truly apologize for it as >I was sorry I said it the moment I pressed the "send" button. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. > > >However, that does not effect the fact that I am still very angry with >Leisel as she ignores everything I say and do except that one thing. My >comments about Leadbeater. But they are facts, and all of the evidence is on >my side of the argument. And I do not believe the van Gelders are being >truthful on this subject. They are far too personally involved with the man. >If one has to admire or ignore Leadbeater to have some kind of relationship >with Leisel, I will forgo the pleasure. When, not if, theosophy goes down >the tubes it will be primarily CWL's fault. I don't quite understand why people who disagree so considerably cannot nonetheless agree to "live and let live" in the area of disagreement and let go of the anger. I would imagine (could be wrong) that as a healer you might find it difficult to help someone with whom you were extremely angry at the time. Soon we shall have the original TS material about the CWL affair circa 1908 that turned up in England recently. This is if course about history as much as it is about theosophy, so some latitude will, I hope, be allowed. I agree, for example, with your other post concerning ~First Principle of Theosophy~ but would point out (and do) that as my own first intro to the subject this book gave me a head start, for all of its flaws. Sometimes it is only by spotting the mistakes that we are moved to look for the truth. 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 Jun 1 22:45:07 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:45:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <9pKx4OAzfMsxEw5R@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ruminations In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960601081524.006b7f8c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960601081524.006b7f8c@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>>snip<<< > >Alan my question is this: I agree that Early Christianity contains valid >mystery teachings. Cannot one find that same esoteric teaching elsewhere? >I'm sure you know ther's nothing at all original in Christianity and all of >it's esoteric or mystery teachings were taken from others. So why not take >the good from a less tainted source? Why not take from any source that's going? Who is to define "tainted"? >>>snip<<< > >If Christianity possessed some esoteric truth that was unique to >Christianity I would view it differently, but, you will "surprise and amaze" >me if you can prove that Christianity possesses one single esoteric truth >that cannot be found elsewhere. "Prove?" Proving *any* esoteric truth is nigh impossible. We either experience it or we don't. Having experienced it, we then interpret the experience. Then we are quite likely to fight about the interpretation! > >>My favorite example (which I regard as a discovery, though I am probably >>not the first to have noticed it over the centuries) will be posted for >>your consideration in due course ... >>> >>Alan > >Alan: > >I await that message with baited breath. No Kidding. Some pretty famous >theologians have tried to change my mind but no one has yet presented me >with any definite evidence. I am not trying to change your mind, so un-bait your breath. The example I have in mind depends upon other sources for its veracity, though it stands up well as an example of "something other" on its own. > 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 Sat Jun 1 23:19:24 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191924_547305083@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Eldon, What have the great teachers really done except find reasons for people to kill each other? Sorry, I'm in a rather testy mood at the moment, but anyway, I think there is room for many different approaches to theosophy and as long as we are willing to respect each others' views and agree to disagree all should be well. But please don't think that I am in any way interested in "social reform". That was a Victorian concept created by people whose one goal in life was to come up with systems for other people to live under and we have born the fruits of that madness throughout this century. It is an idea that has produced nothing but graveyards. Theosophy in action is something not easily defined. It does not reduce to slogans very well and may be only something one does without actually realizing one is doing it. It means something different for each individual and that is the problem with talking about it because while for me it may mean going into battle for a friend, for others it may mean trying to control someone else's behavior. That's why us theosophists fight all the time. I remember at the much over-touted World Parliament of Religions a few years back I went to Jay Williams' talk. When it was over two women took violent issue with his idea that people should be able to agree to disagree on things. They were sitting in front of me and one of the had the temerity to say "Just like Theosophists!" I couldn't take it any more and in my most snobbish voice (ask Brenda if she can remember be me using it) I piped in, "We rather like it that way." In many ways, that's what siblinghood is all about, agreeing to disagree and don't worry, I'm not into tearing down other people's placards as long as they don't tear down mine, but then I have a feeling I wasn't the one that comment was aimed at. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:30 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:30 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191928_547305117@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? Alex, Well, boogienation is the handle of the devotee who is giving the page to me, for free and the price being right I can hardly disapprove of his choice of name. Let me know how the attempt to get on the newsgroup turns out. I'm having the devil's own time here. The dark forces are surely at work and Martin is behind it all, curse him. :-) Anyway, you, I and the universe know the kind of work we really do. What the hell do we care what the idiots who don't know us think? Besides, as we all know from reading the Mad Bishop, Karma is a mathematical concept. Now if we add in the silly Wiccan idea of everything coming back three times, we get something like this. "The life of a sparrow is worth the lives of three hundred thousand people," Earth First That being the case, for every sparrow I keep alive in the winter I get to kill three hundred thousand people without any karmic imbalance. Of course it's hokum! That's why I just wrote it. But as Karma as they define it is hokum as well, why worry about something that doesn't exist? In any event, I grow impatient with these fools. I can't wait until we are all on alt.theosophy and they have to deal with real people. How fast do you think Martin can run? Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:33 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191932_547305135@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Will the real Masters KH and M please stand up Alex, Perhaps Bjorn should be reminded who won the Battle of Poltava. Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:36 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191935_547305154@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Col. Michael Aquino Alex, I think it would be a great idea to get him on this list. Just think how fast everyone would unsubscribe! Of course, John Mead may not be too happy with me if that happened though I get the impression he secretly enjoys all this. After all, he knew what would happen when he created it. Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:38 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191937_547305162@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Earl Grey Council Alex, Well, let's see. This list has a hundred some odd subscribers at best. A fully carried newsgroup can reach millions. Do you remember the saying about Britain? That while other countries were trying to conquer Europe, the British were surrounding Europe? So why worry about this. We are going to have a much bigger sandbox to play in and the ones who want to censor US will, if they have the nerve to post to the newsgroup, learn that they are minnows swimming with sharks. I am actually toned down on this list out of respect for John Mead. On MY newsgroup, I will recognize no such limitations. And our audience will be bigger than anyone in the TS has imagined. Like you, my patience wears thin and I am itching to go to war. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:39 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:39 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191939_547305189@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Alex, Kickboxing is a version of boxing that combines some martial arts. I prefer to watch normal boxing myself. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:44 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:44 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191941_547305212@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Alex, I sit corrected. Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:45 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:45 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191944_547305228@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Alex, I suggest we nominate Martin for the Madame Blavatsky's Baboon Award. Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 1 23:19:48 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:19:48 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960601191947_547305243@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions Rich, I think the problem with Bjorn is that he has forgotten that theosophists are human, not mythical beings who sit learning chelaship. And he really does not understand Americans. He can't unless he's lived here long enough. A couple of years ago a young (possibly, because I am now at the age when anyone not covered in wrinkles looks young) woman from Denmark came to the Annual Gathering. She was very surprised at how utterly different American Theosophists were from anything she had ever seen in Scandanavia, or the rest of Europe for that matter. We are a lot feistier and some of us, well, we do get a little carried away at times especially if we come from backgrounds where it is the norm to debate with some, well, nastiness for lack of a better word. It comes from getting death threats and being called an agent of the Antichrist for your books. I wish Bjorn could have been at that meeting some years back in Chicago at one of the lodges where the debate got so furious that the neighbors called the police! I spoke at the same lodge a few years later and after my talk another debate broke out and Gerda and I literally fled the room. Have you gotten onto alt.theosophy yet? Once I can, it will probably take up much more time than this list and Bjorn can be happy with his discussions as bland as white sauce. As it is, I spend most of my writing time answering friend Alex's many posts. After all, if I can bug millions of people.... Keep that vril stick handy. And just think what HPB would have written if someone had called her the Unabomber. Chuck MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 1 23:22:37 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 18:22:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: e-mail at Adyar Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII TO: THEOS@NETCOM.COM I just received a message from a friend that Adyar seems to be on e-mail. Can you check and let us know what the e-mail address is. mk RAMADOSS From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Jun 1 23:00:25 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 19:00:25 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606020005.UAA02314@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis Thank you for your kind words. I want to add one. When Alexis decided to pick a fight with Martin Euser, he didn't even have enough respect for Martin as a person to get his last name right. He just hit out, blindly, & part of that was the misspelling of Martin's name. For shame! And that calls itself a shaman! Liesel From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 22:30:13 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 18:30:13 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020032.AA22811@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions At 03:24 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >BTW are you a member of TS (Adyar) or any other organization I was a member of the Stockholm lodge when I lived there, but am not a member at this time. Before and after I have practiced different spiritual disciplines, within and without this or that organization, such as various forms of meditation, yoga and Tai Chi/Qi Gong. My first conscious contact with the Masters in this life was made 20-something years ago, assisted by "The I Am Discourses" a book containing affirmations and dictations by Saint Germain and Jesus. For this "opening of the door" I will be ever grateful. BTW, my first significant spiritual realization came about while reading a book by Maharishi Mahesh yogi! Today I don't believe he is a part of the Brotherhood at all, but nevertheless, his writings helped me take a giant leap forward! I was one of the pioneering New Agers in Sweden, organizing events where churches and spiritual groups worked together and presented different programs. This was in the 70ies. I liked some of the writings of Annie Besant, readily available in Sweden, but find them hard to get here. She is not much liked by US theosophists, it seems. Any idea about how to get a book list to order from? Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 22:30:16 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 18:30:16 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020032.AB22811@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions At 03:29 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > >> At 11:06 AM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>> clip >>> >> Well, if the list owner refuses to take action, decent people will move on >> and leave the wolves to eat each other. >> >> Bjorn >> >> roxendal@alpinet.net > > A lot of decent people are on this list and some are posting and >others are lurking. The theosophical "wolves" are kind, >considerate, loving domesticated ones You must be kidding. I am sure that the victims that have been torn apart by their fangs and claws would not agree. I see that there are many considerate and loving people on this list, of course, and I think their right to freedom of expression is violently being encroached upon by the not so kind "wolves", who even seem to be PROUD of their ability to hurt others. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 22:30:18 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 18:30:18 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020032.AC22811@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 02:46 AM 6/1/96 -0400, Alexis wrote: >I told him he was rude, and I still think he's rude, Apparantly the concept of rudeness does exist in the consciousness of Alexis. So far he is applying it to others only, but perhaps one day in the not to far distant future he will start applying it in self-analysis. Yes, I believe in miracles! Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 22:39:42 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 18:39:42 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020041.AA22903@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis On all other mailing lists I have been on, discussions like the one below have been directed to private email conversation. We don't need this in a theosophical discussion in front of one hundred people. Bjorn At 08:08 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > Thank you for your kind words. I want to add one. When Alexis >decided to pick a fight with Martin Euser, he didn't even have enough >respect for Martin as a person to get his last name right. He just hit out, >blindly, & part of that was the misspelling of Martin's name. For shame! And >that calls itself a shaman! > >Liesel > > > roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 1 23:48:00 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 19:48:00 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020150.AA23362@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Russian Theosophical Society Kay, Did you get my email? Bjorn At 02:54 AM 5/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hello! > >========================= >* Forwarded by Macnev Uri >* From : Kay Ziatz >========================= > >> For: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) > > Hi. > >> Where in Russia do you live? >In Moscow. > >> What TS branch do you belong to? >None. I avoid membering in any societies. >I was planning to join international TS (Adyar), but I've read here >that they expelled whole danish lodge because they were studying A. Bailey. roxendal@alpinet.net From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 02:25:54 1996 Date: 01 Jun 96 22:25:54 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Message-Id: <960602022553_76400.1474_HHL29-3@CompuServe.COM> >Eldon, >What have the great teachers really done except find reasons for people to >kill each other? Chuck. as you well know, every truth is a double-edge sword. Even psionics can be used to either help or hurt. We have to accept this every time we publish a new book. Jerry S. Member, TI Comment: My own feeling is that Theosophy will never appeal much to Joe Sixpack (as Eldon pointed out, its too much damned hard work), but I am rooting for you, and will give you an A for effort. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 02:25:44 1996 Date: 01 Jun 96 22:25:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Sheep vs Wolves Message-Id: <960602022543_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> >Well, if the list owner refuses to take action, decent people will move on >and leave the wolves to eat each other. > >Bjorn Hello, Bjorn. Welcome to theos-l. You seem to have the wrong idea about us. "Decent people" are sheep. Wolves tend to eat sheep because they are smarter, faster, and more hungry. Sheep tend to be slow and stupid (not a nice word, I know, but I can't think of a better one right now). Now, "sheep" refer to those theosophists who have an intellectual understanding of Theosophy, who believe every word of the theosophical texts, and who think that they know something. "Wolves" are those theosophists who have added direct experiences to their studies, who doubt some of the teachings given out in the literature, and who also think that they know something. Theos-l is a green clovered wide-open pasture in which the sheep meet up with the wolves. A smart sheep will learn from the encounter, while a really dumb one will run away in terror. On the other hand, the wolf too can learn here, and they too are dumb who run off to seek after more docile sheep to kill. Because not all the sheep on theos-l will roll over and play dead, nor will all of them bow down and serve the wolves. Now, the way I see it, the wolves would like nothing more than for the sheep to wise up and become wolves too, wolves being a lot more advanced than sheep (according to the wolves, anyway). The sheep on the other hand would all like the wolves to go back into the forest where they belong (according to the sheep, anyway) and leave them alone to contemplate this pretty pasture in peace. But the wolves refuse to go, and the sheep refuse to become wolves. So, the bottom line for sheep is to learn what they can and to practice what they have read in their books (compassion etc). And the bottom line for wolves is pretty much the same thing. Some fun, huh? >With a couple of individuals tyrranizing just about everybody else, without >any restraint whatsoever, we have a situation of OPPRESSION, not freedom. Gee Bjorn, you sound a bit sheepish here. Could I interest you in a very nice wolf coat? Didn't think so. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 02:25:51 1996 Date: 01 Jun 96 22:25:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Ruminations Message-Id: <960602022550_76400.1474_HHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> The conversation between Alexis and Martin is very interesting, and I can't help butting in with some of my own comments: >Alexis>The universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and >nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical state is going >to have more than an attitudinal effect on their future. Actually, I would think that an "attitudinal effect" would be sufficient. This is, I believe, exactly what the "skandhas" are all about. >>Martin comments: This seems to dismiss all notion of the interrelatedness >>of cosmos and humans. When I say that ethics is built-in in the structure >>of the universe, how do you react then? > >Alexis>There is no judgement, there is no retribution, "seeking of equilibrium", >there is only a milieu that every individual creates for themselves. I agree with Alexis on this one. God help us all, if the universe has a built-in standard of ethics. The various theories of karma are our own human inventions that attempt to "explain" the universe to the human mind. They are models of reality, and as such fall short of the truth. >Alexis>The only think that matters, the only thing in the universe that >matters, is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it >processes and stores information, that is critical. That's what the Universe >is all about, the infinitization of intelligence, and the processing and storing of >information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid. All >information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful >to the universal data-bank. Although in different words, I have arrived at this same conclusion myself. The Theosophical teaching that the purpose in evolution is self- consciousness and that we all end up better than before is nonsense, in my view. During the Arc of Descent we gain ignorance, and during the Arc of Ascent we gain intelligence and knowledge. >Martin: This spawns another question: how long does this growth >of love, of perception of unity continue? How long does a manvantara last? >Alexis>What an individual human being does with their personal information >data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter >in the slightest, within the universal paradigm. I think that it does matter a little. The "gods" whatever else they may be, digest the knowledge that we learn. In a practical sense, one person's experience is infinitesimal, but in a theoretical sense, it does count a little bit. Its a bit like the butterfly effect--a butterfly flapping its wings in California will effect the weather in Maryland in a few weeks-- but the amount of this effect is too small to measure. >Alexis: Now as to "reincarnation" as the intrinsic evolving intelligence > manifests serially but non-consequentially, each succeeding manifestation, >and I must emphasize that they are not inter-connected except by way of the >Intrinsic evolving intelligence [Jiva, not Manas I take it], is, nonetheless, > a consequence of all the previous manifestations and so is "flavoured" >or "coloured" by them. But each of them is unique and individual and so is >the "last in line". Your "intrinsic evolving intelligence" is what HPB called the Reincarnating Ego or simply Ego (capital E). I am not so sure that any ray or personality can be called the "last-in-line" except in a relative sense, because time itself is mayavic, and it is the only thing that separates the various ego manifestations. Otherwise, I agree. >Alexis: "Karma", to me, is simply one of religion's "little control mechanisms". >It's a way to make people "behave" according to the dictates of religion and >more important than that, the dictates of the people that run the religion. This is today's materialistic (ala scientific) viewpoint. If we look at karma as simply the Law of Causality, and allow for a little chaos, I have no problem at all with the doctrine of karma. >Martin: It is not something *outside* oneself. That would be absurd >indeed. It is inside onself but has to do with the interconnectedness >of all beings. Wrong. It is both inside and outside. There is an external and an internal karma. Hit your finger with a hammer. The pain that you experience is an external karmic effect of your action. Martin: The 'roll of the dice' theory seems a bit too mechanical to me however. >If such accidents happen, I would rather think of some recompensation >in another life. 'Roll of the dice' is inherently injust. Where does >this leave the idea of justice? Do you throw that away? An extremely good question. However, life consists of dice rolls (sorry Einstein, but God does in fact play dice) and causality both. It contains both chaos and order, and cannot have one without the other lurking about somewhere. A person's birth is most often karmic (order) but occassionally will be pure chance (chaos). The Chaos Factor kicks us in the teeth every once and awhile, without any explaination or "by your leave." Justice is mavaic, like everything else in life. If you like, you can always say that even chaos is one's karma, and in fact, you won't be too wrong, because it is what is sometimes called collective karma, and it comes about simply because we agreed to be mortal human beings when we came here, and so agreed to accept life as it is, chaos and all. If you feel a need for a "reason" why something horrible happened to you, then just remember the famous line "life's a bitch, then you die" and the fact that you signed up for this when you came here. If you are religious, the famous line "its God's will, and God works in mysterious ways" has helped a lot of folks over the years, and makes about as much sense as anything else. >Alexis (re religion): They are unorthodox, but they are my views. I take total >responsibility for them. > >Martin comments: I bet you do! Although Alexis's view is a bit harsh, I tend to agree that we would all be better off without relgions of any kind. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 02:25:57 1996 Date: 01 Jun 96 22:25:57 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? Message-Id: <960602022557_76400.1474_HHL29-4@CompuServe.COM> >Let me know how the attempt to get on the newsgroup turns out. Chuck, Let me know when it is available on either Compuserve or AOL. I won't even try it until one of them picks it up. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 03:10:28 1996 Date: 01 Jun 96 23:10:28 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: More Sheep vs Wolves Message-Id: <960602031028_76400.1474_HHL65-1@CompuServe.COM> >You must be kidding. I am sure that the victims that have been torn apart by >their fangs and claws would not agree. I see that there are many considerate >and loving people on this list, of course, and I think their right to >freedom of expression is violently being encroached upon by the not so kind >"wolves", who even seem to be PROUD of their ability to hurt others. Bjorn, please read my "wolves vs sheep" post for some insight into this problem. Yes, its true. Wolves are proud of their actions. Do you know why? Of course you don't. Its because sheep need shock therapy at times. When a wolf lashes out at a sheep, especially a theosophical one, he (or she) would expect to be met with love and compassion--is this not what Theosophy teaches, and is this not what you have been reading and studying about for lo these many years? Well, John Meade's endless patience bears testimony to his theosophical prowess. If you were in charge, your compassion-less nature would have booted Alexis and Chuck into another network (for their own good, doubtless). Theos-l is a battleground my friend. Its a bloody battle between some pretty mean wolves and some pretty hard-headed sheep. Ask Eldon, a well-meaning sheep, whom most of us wolves have come to respect over time simply because he can't be felled, try as we may. But he, at least, answers the fang and claw with compassion (usually) and tolerance (most of the time). I suspect he is a better sheep for it. Anyway, he wants to remain a sheep, and has no desire whatever to become wolfish, and even ignores wolfish tendencies when they subtly enter his thoughts. I admit, he has most of us wolves confounded and circling our wagons. He is a formidable foe, and his postings are being listened to by other sheep (doubtless by those who lurk as well) which make our task doubly difficult. But most sheep are not as bright as Eldon, and they lash back at us with as much invective as a wolf (and here maybe is the way of their conversion, don't you think?). Because sheep that run away, or sheep that cry FOUL in the night against our attacks, are sheep that are not ready for wolf-dom yet anyway, and are certain to remain sheep for at least seven more lifetimes before another chance like theos-l comes along for them. Think about it. Jerry S. Member, TI From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 1 13:40:44 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 08:40:44 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960601084259.26cfc392@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: TSA Voting Tally Update Hi Here is an update on the subject. The following letter was FAXED to John Algeo. Will keep you informed when I hear from him. ...Ramadoss ======================================== FAX MESSAGE June 1, 1996 8:15 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America Wheaton IL ELECTION VOTING TALLY Dear Bro. Algeo: It is now two weeks since this subject issue is being corresponded. It is almost a week since I Faxed you a long letter explaining how you should have no problems in sending me the information since the IL law is very clear on the issue of access to TSA information. While the unrestricted disclosure of voting tally is not going to alter the results of the election, unrestricted access to the voting tally data addresses the very fundamental issue of member's access to TSA books and records. If you agree that IL law applies to TSA, then I should have received the information requested by FAX which has not happened so far. If you think that IL law does not apply to TSA, then you should explain in very simple language why, so that we ordinary members can understand? Do you think that this is an unreasonable request from a member in good standing of TSA? On these simple matters, I think everyone expects a quick and fast response. So I am still waiting for (1) quick action from you and (2) to receive the voting tally details by FAX expeditiously. With fraternal greetings Yours fraternally M. K. Ramadoss Member TSA FAXCC: William Greer, National Secretary From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 08:40:44 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: TSA Voting Tally Update Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960601084259.26cfc392@mail.eden.com> Hi Here is an update on the subject. The following letter was FAXED to John Algeo. Will keep you informed when I hear from him. ...Ramadoss ======================================== FAX MESSAGE June 1, 1996 8:15 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America Wheaton IL ELECTION VOTING TALLY Dear Bro. Algeo: It is now two weeks since this subject issue is being corresponded. It is almost a week since I Faxed you a long letter explaining how you should have no problems in sending me the information since the IL law is very clear on the issue of access to TSA information. While the unrestricted disclosure of voting tally is not going to alter the results of the election, unrestricted access to the voting tally data addresses the very fundamental issue of member's access to TSA books and records. If you agree that IL law applies to TSA, then I should have received the information requested by FAX which has not happened so far. If you think that IL law does not apply to TSA, then you should explain in very simple language why, so that we ordinary members can understand? Do you think that this is an unreasonable request from a member in good standing of TSA? On these simple matters, I think everyone expects a quick and fast response. So I am still waiting for (1) quick action from you and (2) to receive the voting tally details by FAX expeditiously. With fraternal greetings Yours fraternally M. K. Ramadoss Member TSA FAXCC: William Greer, National Secretary ------------------------------ End of THEOS-SPAN Digest 14 *************************** From pwalstra@pi.net Sun Jun 2 19:51:28 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 21:52:09 +0200 From: "Peter I. Walstra" Message-Id: <31B1F0E9.6E48@pi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: TI first object References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1. To put into practice the fact that we are all parts of one universal > human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, > class, or color. The revision is fine with me. I also agree with both Alexis' and Martin's proposals. (I guess we all know what it is we're trying to be or do; on the other hand, it's important to make available well-thought-about P.R. stuff for [modern] theosophy.) Peter I. Walstra Member T.I. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 04:00:40 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 00:00:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602000040_405426821@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Freedom!!!!! I find it fascinating the argument used by petty tyrants who think that they can control what we say and think. They love to draw the imaginary distinction between freedom and license, license being saying things they don't want to hear, like people who think they are chelas are deluded idiots. Then there are those who long for the return of the fascist movements of the 1930's and fear that if people express themselves too openly it will be destructive of "community." So let me make this clear. There is only one person who can decide if this list is to be moderated and that is John Mead and I cannot imagine why he would want the administrative nightmare of doing so, particularly in light of the offense such an action would give to the Americans on this list, who are the overwhelming majority and frankly don't give a damn what other countries do. And it is really no mystery why Americans feel this way. It's part of our history and our folklore. ANY attempt to control speech is absolutely and unqualifiably anathema to us. It is a subject that is not open to discussion and any politician who thinks it can be done has best kiss his office goodbye because even if he survives the first election, he won't last through another one, not after the press has had its way with him and his family. So please stop wasting bandwidth with this nonsense. It is not going to happen and even if by some bizarre lunacy it should, there is a newsgroup now which I can guarantee will never be moderated for any reason. And I can guarantee it because a dear friend of mine put it together for us. The net stays free and if you don't like it, LEAVE! Chuck the Obnoxious, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Friend of Alex From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 04:53:08 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 23:53:08 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The Earl Grey Council In-Reply-To: <960601191937_547305162@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 1 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Alex, > Well, let's see. This list has a hundred some odd subscribers at best. A > fully carried newsgroup can reach millions. That is exactly what I am dreaming for! May be it will come true one of these days. ....ramadoss From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 03:00:36 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 23:00:36 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020502.AA24859@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 12:04 AM 6/2/96 -0400, Chuck wrote: >So please stop wasting bandwidth with this nonsense. I thought your position was that we all should express ourselves freely on this list? >The net stays free and if you don't like it, LEAVE! Do you find my presence here disturbing? > There is only one person who can decide if this >list is to be moderated and that is John Mead I understand this. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 05:11:01 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 00:11:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Discussions In-Reply-To: <9606020032.AA22811@alpinet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > At 03:24 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > >BTW are you a member of TS (Adyar) or any other organization > > I was a member of the Stockholm lodge when I lived there, but am not a > member at this time. Before and after I have practiced different spiritual > disciplines, within and without this or that organization, such as various > forms of meditation, yoga and Tai Chi/Qi Gong. My first conscious contact > with the Masters in this life was made 20-something years ago, assisted by > "The I Am Discourses" a book containing affirmations and dictations by Saint > Germain and Jesus. For this "opening of the door" I will be ever grateful. > BTW, my first significant spiritual realization came about while reading a > book by Maharishi Mahesh yogi! Today I don't believe he is a part of the > Brotherhood at all, but nevertheless, his writings helped me take a giant > leap forward! Glad to see your message. Couple of things might interest you. Long before Mahesh Yogi became well known, in late 50s I had a good friend who was doing his graduate work in Chicago and later taught in Brooklyn, Mahesh Yogi discussed with him some of his ideas of how to market his ideas and make money. So it was clear from day one, what his long term objectives were. Recently I also read a book by his first "disciple" in the US and organized the group and was the president of the group, that one day after a long meditation he realized that all the effects were just a reaction of his nervous system and nothing to do with any higher matters and instantly he resigned for ever from TM. So I wonder how far away Maheshi Yogi from any of the real Brothers. But I do not dismiss that he or his books or his systems does not help someone. It is said even a stone can teach valuable lessons for an intelligent man. > > I was one of the pioneering New Agers in Sweden, organizing events where > churches and spiritual groups worked together and presented different > programs. This was in the 70ies. > > I liked some of the writings of Annie Besant, readily available in Sweden, > but find them hard to get here. She is not much liked by US theosophists, it This may not be completely true. There are many, who have been benefitted from her books. You do not have to like the author to derive some understanding or benefit from the book. You will be surprised how many Theosophists in the US like her and her books. The proof of the pudding is in eating - if her books have helped someone to better understand or any other way benefitted some one, that is all it counts. > seems. Any idea about how to get a book list to order from? Please send a e-mail to theos@netcom.com with a request for (1) where you can get her books in your country and (2) if you could order them from TPH, Wheaton, IL. As a last resort you can get a list from Adyar and can order from there. The last choice will take time. I heard today that Adyar is on e-mail and keep listening and I will be posting it as soon as I know the e-mail address. BTW, are you interested in any particular book by Annie Besant? Regards, .....Ramadoss > > Bjorn > > roxendal@alpinet.net > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 05:12:16 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 00:12:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Discussions In-Reply-To: <9606020032.AB22811@alpinet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just hang in there. This will soon get better. ....ramadoss On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > At 03:29 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > > > >> At 11:06 AM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>> clip >>> > >> Well, if the list owner refuses to take action, decent people will move on > >> and leave the wolves to eat each other. > >> > >> Bjorn > >> > >> roxendal@alpinet.net > > > > A lot of decent people are on this list and some are posting and > >others are lurking. The theosophical "wolves" are kind, > >considerate, loving domesticated ones > > You must be kidding. I am sure that the victims that have been torn apart by > their fangs and claws would not agree. I see that there are many considerate > and loving people on this list, of course, and I think their right to > freedom of expression is violently being encroached upon by the not so kind > "wolves", who even seem to be PROUD of their ability to hurt others. > > Bjorn > > roxendal@alpinet.net > > From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 03:46:48 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 23:46:48 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020548.AA25401@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 12:04 AM 6/2/96 -0400, Chuck wrote: > saying things they >don't want to hear, like people who think they are chelas are deluded idiots. Seeing that you and Alexis don't know me much, at least not yet, I don't find whatever you have to say about me very interesting at all. I do see, however, that you don't mind judging somebody you know very little about. I'll give you a tip: If you want to hurt me, first get to know me and find some of my weak spots and attack there. Then, MAYBE I'll get angry. Which, if I understand the "game" you are playing correctly, would please you? Well, I will tell you what I see in you at this point, since you have very generously been showing off some aspects of your personality : A good heart with a lot of positive feelings for other people. Also Immaturity and the selflimiting identification with the ideas of being an obnoxious troublemaker. The worst problem seems to be that you actually think you are HELPING people with this childish silliness. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 04:13:53 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:13:53 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606020616.AA25561@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions At 01:11 AM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: So I >wonder how far away Maheshi Yogi from any of the real Brothers. But I do >not dismiss that he or his books or his systems does not help someone. In my case his book helped me open my eyes to see that God Consciousness is everywhere. >Please send a e-mail to theos@netcom.com with a request for (1) where you >can get her books in your country Thanks. I live in the US. >BTW, are you interested in any particular book by Annie Besant? Right now I would like to get a little book called something like "Our life in three worlds". I have it in Swedish and find that it presents basic and important teachings in a very concentrated easy to read format - good for new (and old) students. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 06:45:10 1996 Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 23:45:10 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602064510.006c41f0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 06:47 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Martin comments: > >Freedom of speech is a very good and necessary thing indeed. >As with all freedom, however, it is imperative that people learn to operate >within certain self-imposed boundaries, having to do with the rights >and freedoms of others. Why is it that so many Americans are obsessed >with their *rights*? Do they still have to learn their *duties*? >One's duty may be the 'right' of the other, isn't it? Martin: You will find, if you make contact with many other American based groups, that most Americans are positively repelled by the idea of "Duties". Many of us were altogether too frequently disgusted by the concept of "Dienst" in the period 1933 -1945. Most American's you will find will absolutely refuse to learn "their duties". Now as to self-imposed boundaries: Well I have my own and you have your own, there is absolutely no reason they should be identical. I submit that you haven't been on this list long enough to make a creditable evaluation of the overall thrust of my messages. I submit that to judge all my messages by jocular messages between Chuck Cosiman and myself is entirely unfair and irresponsible. I submit that to judge me at all doesn't lie within your purview or authority. I submit that it is my perception that the greatest motivation behind your judgemental attitude towards me derives from the entirely unorthodox approach I have to what Eldon and Daniel call the "Core Doctrines" of Theosophy, and that I believe is the ONLY thing that drives you. If you would go through my postings since I joined the board you would find that, with the exception of my "games" with Chuck Cosimano, the majority of my messages have been thoughtful, original, and entirely unorthodox. But I also submit that the actual content of my messages on this board are of really little interest to you. > >Indeed. But that's not the issue here (except for the Leadbeater case). Please explain the sentence above. I don't wish to misunderstand you. >The issue is, or rather has become: personal attacks on each other. In the first place, if you had been on this list long enough to follow the whole situation, you would find that I am not entirely at fault. I have been accused of things that in my own estimation, I did not do. The problem with Liesel Deutsch originated when she violently reacted to my total disapproval of Charles Webster Leadbeater, my mistake was, and I freely admit it, to let my Russian temper get the best of me and replied in kind. When something I say is true, and is backed up by vast amounts of printed evidence, I do not accept being told that I cannot discuss the subject. I have "filtered" Liesel and you'll find if you read her postings that a great many of them are entirely gratuitous attacks on me, on my veracity, on my intelligence, and on my honor. And yet you apparently feel that I, who have only replied to one particularly scurrilous remark in a fit of anger (and immediately apologized) am entirely and singly at fault. That is unacceptably unfair. >Sure you are wise enough to not belief that anything good comes from it. You are absolutely right that I think nothing good comes of it. But I will tell you that this campaign to make me the "demon" of this list is slanderous, libelous, and totally undeserved. You will get no "Mea Culpeas" out of me. You seem to operate on the premise that to be accused of something makes one guilty, well that may be true in Roman Law but it is not true in American Law. I have been accused of "Bashing" Eldon Tucker, but the accusation is untrue, I disagreed with both his statement and his attitudes, that is indeed true, but that is not "bashing". On the other hand I have been bashed for that illusionary action far more times than I find acceptable. >Why continue or react, as the case may be? (I subscribed but a couple >of days ago to theos-buds and didn't see much of the previous quarrels >there) >Anyway, I'm glad you withdraw your remark about Liesel as Alan rightly >requested. > I'd have apologized far sooner and well before Alan's request but I know that Liesel has me filtered so how would she see it? >Again to this 'self-appointed censor' thing. It sounds as a hollow phrase to >me, because it is used too often by you (and Chuck sometimes). You're not >dealing >with kids on this list, but with grown-ups who *do* have some standards of >behaviour.. >Maybe you will have more success with this style of communicating >on alt.theosophy (if there are many young people on it), but this style >is often contra-productive on this board. You *will* have noticed that >by now, I presume? > Martin: Please delete the sarcasm. I find the attempts at censorship on this board far too one sided, far too personality specific, and infinitely far too indicative of an entirely hypocritical double standard. There seems to be one standard for myself and Chuck, and an entirely different standard for others. This I will never accept. Secondly, I have never assumed I was dealing with "Kids" on this board. I think your assumption that I have is presumptuous to say the least. I also think it's presumptuous of you to imply that people who are young are either ignorant or unintelligent. >Now, having said this, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in your *ideas*. >In fact, I'm going to discuss your views on karma and reincarnation thoroughly >with you, if you can stand severe scrutiny and dissecting of your opinions >on these things. > >Martin Euser > You know Martin; my opinions have been subject to scrutiny and dissection for many years, and by people with strings of Doctorates inches long. Alan Bain is a person who severly scritinizes and criticizes my opinions regularly and I have no trouble with it. You apparently are extremely pleased with yourself, and I have no reason to doubt either your intelligence or your knowledge. But, I'd thank you to return the compliment. I have three hundred students all over this planet, most of them mature and well-educated people, when you insult me, you insult them. alexis > > > > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:00:11 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:00:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602070011.006aef44@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 06:46 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<< >Martin comments: >you use the word 'of course' quite often in your postings. >Is this supposed to add weight to your utterances? Martin: I'm, among many other things, a professional writer. The "of course" is what is called a "stylistic habit" and has no other motivation. I think it would help if you were not so totally negative in your perception of everything I say and do. > >Alexis>I do suggest that it might be polite if you'd "butt out' of what is >obviously a personal continuing conversation in a jocular vein. > > >Martin comments: >'jocular vein', really.. Is it perceived so by Liesel? How "perceived by Liesel" she has made it clear that she has filtered both Chuck and myself...so what we say is hardly anything we expect her to read. >And whence this sulky posting of yours if it concerns only 'jocular vein'? >There is evidently a contradiction between tone and content here.. This is entirely your personal perception Martin, and I think "sulky" is a word one uses to children and I am probably your senior. > > >Alexis> You don't have the faintest idea what the continuing conversation is >all about so why impose upon it? If you had even a faint idea why Paul >Johnson is upset with Daniel Caldwell or why I am upset with Liesel >F.Deutsch you'd have some grounds to discuss it. But you don't so, I repeat, >why impose yourself when you have no knowledge of the causes or situation? > >Martin comments: Before you were a subscriber to theos-l I was at least two >or three times so, dropping out after certain periods for various reasons. >I'm quite aware of the Paul Johnson - Daniel Caldwell debates and ditto >with the debates regarding Leadbeater. So, I *do* know about it, actually >more than I would like to. I will say one thing however, and it is this: >even if you're right about Leadbeater (Jerry H-E has in the past mentioned >some documentary evidence regarding the 'Leadbeater case'), even then >it is far wiser to take someone's [substitute: Liesel] feelings into account >and not try to put your idea's through someone's throat. They're not "ideas" Martin they are facts! This person will >probably vomit and it might just end right in your face.. (an ugly picture, but >a psychological truth). Don't you think you might actually accomplish more >if you would be a little more considerate at times? If you'd been on the list at that time, you'd know that I started out by being very considerate indeed. I dropped the subject entirely and didn't even refer to it. It was only when CWL unavoidably came up in a context divorced from his pederasty and I disagreed with him on some philosophical matters, that Liesel "went off like a rocket". How about Liesel being considerate of my feelings? Eh? >A basic thing is having respect for each other, and I suspect that you >DO have respect 'even for Liesel' despite the comments you were exchanging. >I have (and hate it) to be nitpicking on this point because this respect is not >sounding through very much in your posts (the same would probably be true >for Liesel regarding you - I would have to trace back all the posts even before >I subscribed to this forum this time to be more definitely here) Do so. >Can't you show a little more of that to her? It's far too late for that Martin, I will, if I can, have no further contact with her at all. I don't really like dealing with people who call you names when you disagree with them. > >Friendly, > >Martin Euser > I am nobody's enemy Martin. alexis> > From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:05:07 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:05:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602070507.006dee74@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations (Alexis-Martin); Long post! Martin: It is just past midnight here in California and so I have pressed the button and I will give your discussion the attention that it deserves when I have adequate time in the next day or so. It would be fair neither to myself or to you to answer intelligent questions when I am pressed for time and quite tired. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:07:12 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:07:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602070712.006db7d8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Will the real Masters KH and M please sit down again At 07:07 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >I didn't really think it likely. Another pathetic attempt at humor down >tha pan ... > >ALan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: My friend, it must be the fault of all those impossibly teutonic genetics I bear.When I am tired I get too literal to bear. alexis From kymsmith@micron.net Sun Jun 2 07:05:00 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 01:05 MDT From: kymsmith@micron.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: "Isis Unveiled" question I have begun reading "Isis Unveiled," finding it a wonderful and fascinating read, although I have to have a dictionary lying next to me during these reading sessions. I think this monograph will require many repeat readings in order to better understand it. "The Secret Doctrine" is of course next - although it too looks daunting. Am I understanding "correctly" when Ms. Blavatsky states that incarnation into the physical more than once is an exception, rather than the rule? That surprised me; I have read a bit about theosophy but hadn't come across that viewpoint. I had read that Theosophy espouses to long periods (over 1000 years) between incarnations, but that would allow for many more incarnations than one or two. Yet, also, the long period of rest between incarnations seems to go against Eastern philosophy which accepts even immediate re-incarnations. Is there a publication or source which could help clarify or suggest a consensus to these philosophies? Perhaps I am premature in my confusion - will this be addressed in "The Secret Doctrine?" Thank You, Kym From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:16:13 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:16:13 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602071613.006db990@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Please stop this At 07:11 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<< > >I don't quite understand why people who disagree so considerably cannot >nonetheless agree to "live and let live" in the area of disagreement and >let go of the anger. I would imagine (could be wrong) that as a healer >you might find it difficult to help someone with whom you were extremely >angry at the time. Soon we shall have the original TS material about >the CWL affair circa 1908 that turned up in England recently. The thing is, Alan, I am perfectly willing to "agree to disagree" with Leisel about CWL. But I will NOT agree to "shut up" about the subject when I feel it's as important as it is. Believe me Alan, I'm getting information out of France, Italy, and South America that make the pederasty a minor fluke. What I object to highly is her constant stream of abuse and innuendo because of my attitude towards CWL.She has gone so far as to accuse me of "taking out my problems with my Father on CWL" which is pop psychology and is kind of funny when you consider that the only problem I had re: my Father was the lack of one. > >This is if course about history as much as it is about theosophy, so >some latitude will, I hope, be allowed. I agree, for example, with your >other post concerning ~First Principle of Theosophy~ but would point out >(and do) that as my own first intro to the subject this book gave me a >head start, for all of its flaws. Sometimes it is only by spotting the >mistakes that we are moved to look for the truth. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > As to "spotting the mistakes" Oh Alan that's my favorite method of learning. It's the Rmana Maharshi "Nehti- Nehti_" method...I have always felt one learns more by rejecting nonsense than any other way. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:23:06 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:23:06 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602072306.006e8248@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations At 07:12 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>cut<<<<< > >Why not take from any source that's going? Who is to define "tainted"? It's not a difficult definition: The Inquisition+pogroms+gettos+Crusades+The Holocaust= "tainted". "By their fruit shall ye know them!" > >>>>snip<<< >> > >"Prove?" Proving *any* esoteric truth is nigh impossible. We either >experience it or we don't. Having experienced it, we then interpret the >experience. Then we are quite likely to fight about the interpretation! But do we not tend to have experiences that are to some degree "scripted" and the result of the mis en scene of our pre-dispositions and beliefs? >> > >> >I am not trying to change your mind, so un-bait your breath. The >example I have in mind depends upon other sources for its veracity, >though it stands up well as an example of "something other" on its own. >> >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > Alan: Eh bien mon ami, I await with intense interest. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:28:14 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:28:14 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602072814.006c50b8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? At 07:20 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Well, boogienation is the handle of the devotee who is giving the page to me, >for free and the price being right I can hardly disapprove of his choice of >name. >Let me know how the attempt to get on the newsgroup turns out. I'm having >the devil's own time here. The dark forces are surely at work and Martin is >behind it all, curse him. :-) >Anyway, you, I and the universe know the kind of work we really do. What the >hell do we care what the idiots who don't know us think? >Besides, as we all know from reading the Mad Bishop, Karma is a mathematical >concept. Now if we add in the silly Wiccan idea of everything coming back >three times, we get something like this. >"The life of a sparrow is worth the lives of three hundred thousand people," >Earth First >That being the case, for every sparrow I keep alive in the winter I get to >kill three hundred thousand people without any karmic imbalance. >Of course it's hokum! That's why I just wrote it. But as Karma as they >define it is hokum as well, why worry about something that doesn't exist? >In any event, I grow impatient with these fools. I can't wait until we are >all on alt.theosophy and they have to deal with real people. >How fast do you think Martin can run? > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > You know that Martin will in all likelihood take every word you just said totally seriously. He's Dutch (I think) and they are as entirely literal as any German or Slav. Holland is still one of my two or three favorite places. Dutch Boys are really good in bed! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:29:42 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:29:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602072942.006ad894@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Will the real Masters KH and M please stand up At 07:21 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Perhaps Bjorn should be reminded who won the Battle of Poltava. > >Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >My Great-Grandfather eight times removed! That's who! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:32:42 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:32:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602073242.006c3d08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Col. Michael Aquino At 07:21 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I think it would be a great idea to get him on this list. Just think how >fast everyone would unsubscribe! Oh I don't know despite the few who find us inconvenient and too "shocking" there are a number of really intelligent people on this list and I like to have dsicussions with them, and I am sure they'd find the colonel both interesting and intriguing. >Of course, John Mead may not be too happy with me if that happened though I >get the impression he secretly enjoys all this. After all, he knew what >would happen when he created it. I think so too! > >Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:34:42 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:34:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602073442.006cb6e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 07:23 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I suggest we nominate Martin for the Madame Blavatsky's Baboon Award. > >Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: But if we did that, what would we have to nominate the terrrible Swede for? The Hagar the Horrible award? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:41:40 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:41:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602074140.006e4c40@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions At 08:30 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >You must be kidding. I am sure that the victims that have been torn apart by >their fangs and claws would not agree. I see that there are many considerate >and loving people on this list, of course, and I think their right to >freedom of expression is violently being encroached upon by the not so kind >"wolves", who even seem to be PROUD of their ability to hurt others. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >Bjorn: No, he's not kidding he's just been on the list a lot longer than you. As to your remarks above, they are far more arrogantly intemperate than any I could be accused of. Why don't you think about that? People who cast stones at others, and that seems your specialty, had better be very careful to be entirely without sin. And your comments about wolves are utter hyperbole, I sleep with one of them lying across the end of my bed every night. I think Bjorn that Denali (my wolf) is a far kinder and more gentle person than you. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 07:57:56 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 00:57:56 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602075756.006bb808@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 08:38 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >At 08:08 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >> Thank you for your kind words. I want to add one. When Alexis >>decided to pick a fight with Martin Euser, he didn't even have enough >>respect for Martin as a person to get his last name right. He just hit out, >>blindly, & part of that was the misspelling of Martin's name. For shame! And >>that calls itself a shaman! >> >>Liesel >> >> >> >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >This is directed to the entire list. That is an example of the constant stream of invective that proceeds from that source. If I am constantly taking to task for ignoring her except once, for which I immediately apologized, then where are her responsibilities to me? I was, and still am under the impression that Martin's last name was EULER If it isn't I was wrong. But her implication that I misspelled his name out of malice is totally insane. Now, when we get down to malice, and viciousness, how do we describe calling another Human Being a "that"? I also wasn't under any impression that I had picked a fight with Martin, and we are having some interesting and lively discussions, with no really sharp disagreements that I can see. As far as to my qualifications to being a shaman, she has no basis of comparison. When she can cure the very sick (animals too) as frequently as I do, she can begin to judge me. And all this because I presume to tell the truth about someone she forbids me to do so about! Now this is an example of the "double standard" that people on this list exercise that I complain so bitterly about. Never, ever, not once, on this board have I spewed streams of invective and spite, and yet Liesel is sympathized with and I am castigated. For Shame indeed! alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 08:19:05 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 01:19:05 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602081905.006d90cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Ruminations At 10:31 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: Jerry: The set of apparent questions and answers below, are Martin's questions in response to my pamphlet; ruminations, and my first set of responses to him. The second set is in preparation and I will post it in the next couple of days (this is a busy weekend for me socially) Today (the 2nd june)is my 25th anniversary with my domestic partner John. The only differences between your views and mine are that, as always, yours tend to be less radical. alexis >The conversation between Alexis and Martin is very interesting, and >I can't help butting in with some of my own comments: > >>Alexis>The universe itself, is an entirely value-free information system and >>nothing at all which an individual does while in the physical state is going >>to have more than an attitudinal effect on their future. > Actually, I would think that an "attitudinal effect" would be >sufficient. This is, I believe, exactly what the "skandhas" are all about. > > >>>Martin comments: This seems to dismiss all notion of the interrelatedness >>>of cosmos and humans. When I say that ethics is built-in in the structure >>>of the universe, how do you react then? >> >>Alexis>There is no judgement, there is no retribution, "seeking of >equilibrium", >>there is only a milieu that every individual creates for themselves. > I agree with Alexis on this one. God help us all, if the universe >has a built-in standard of ethics. The various theories of karma are our >own human inventions that attempt to "explain" the universe to the >human mind. They are models of reality, and as such fall short of the >truth. > > >>Alexis>The only think that matters, the only thing in the universe that >>matters, is intelligence. It is how that intelligence is utilized and how it >>processes and stores information, that is critical. That's what the Universe >>is all about, the infinitization of intelligence, and the processing and >storing of >>information for the use of that intelligence. All information is valid. All >>information, and experience is the major source of information, is needful >>to the universal data-bank. > Although in different words, I have arrived at this same conclusion >myself. The Theosophical teaching that the purpose in evolution is self- >consciousness and that we all end up better than before is nonsense, in >my view. During the Arc of Descent we gain ignorance, and during the >Arc of Ascent we gain intelligence and knowledge. > > >>Martin: This spawns another question: how long does this growth >>of love, of perception of unity continue? > How long does a manvantara last? > >>Alexis>What an individual human being does with their personal information >>data-bank, matters only within their personal paradigm. It does not matter >>in the slightest, within the universal paradigm. > I think that it does matter a little. The "gods" whatever else >they may be, digest the knowledge that we learn. In a practical sense, >one person's experience is infinitesimal, but in a theoretical sense, >it does count a little bit. Its a bit like the butterfly effect--a butterfly >flapping >its wings in California will effect the weather in Maryland in a few weeks-- >but the amount of this effect is too small to measure. > >>Alexis: Now as to "reincarnation" as the intrinsic evolving intelligence >> manifests serially but non-consequentially, each succeeding manifestation, >>and I must emphasize that they are not inter-connected except by way of the >>Intrinsic evolving intelligence [Jiva, not Manas I take it], is, nonetheless, >> a consequence of all the previous manifestations and so is "flavoured" >>or "coloured" by them. But each of them is unique and individual and so is >>the "last in line". > Your "intrinsic evolving intelligence" is what HPB called the >Reincarnating Ego or simply Ego (capital E). I am not so sure that any >ray or personality can be called the "last-in-line" except in a relative >sense, because time itself is mayavic, and it is the only thing that >separates the various ego manifestations. Otherwise, I agree. > >>Alexis: "Karma", to me, is simply one of religion's "little control >mechanisms". >>It's a way to make people "behave" according to the dictates of religion and >>more important than that, the dictates of the people that run the religion. > This is today's materialistic (ala scientific) viewpoint. If we >look at karma as simply the Law of Causality, and allow for a little chaos, >I have no problem at all with the doctrine of karma. > > >>Martin: It is not something *outside* oneself. That would be absurd >>indeed. It is inside onself but has to do with the interconnectedness >>of all beings. > Wrong. It is both inside and outside. There is an external >and an internal karma. Hit your finger with a hammer. The pain that >you experience is an external karmic effect of your action. > > I call it the "Chaos Factor" but a rose is a rose is a rose. > >>Martin: The 'roll of the dice' theory seems a bit too mechanical to me however. >>If such accidents happen, I would rather think of some recompensation >>in another life. 'Roll of the dice' is inherently injust. Where does >>this leave the idea of justice? Do you throw that away? > An extremely good question. However, life consists of >dice rolls (sorry Einstein, but God does in fact play dice) and causality >both. It contains both chaos and order, and cannot have one without >the other lurking about somewhere. A person's birth is most often >karmic (order) but occassionally will be pure chance (chaos). The Chaos >Factor kicks us in the teeth every once and awhile, without any explaination >or "by your leave." Justice is mavaic, like everything else in life. If >you like, you can always say that even chaos is one's karma, and in >fact, you won't be too wrong, because it is what is sometimes called >collective karma, and it comes about simply because we agreed to >be mortal human beings when we came here, and so agreed to >accept life as it is, chaos and all. If you feel a need for a "reason" >why something horrible happened to you, then just remember the >famous line "life's a bitch, then you die" and the fact that you signed >up for this when you came here. If you are religious, the famous >line "its God's will, and God works in mysterious ways" has helped >a lot of folks over the years, and makes about as much sense as >anything else. > >>Alexis (re religion): They are unorthodox, but they are my views. I take total > >>responsibility for them. >> >>Martin comments: I bet you do! > Although Alexis's view is a bit harsh, I tend to agree that we would >all be better off without relgions of any kind. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 08:35:40 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 01:35:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602083540.006d9930@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 01:45 AM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<<<< >Seeing that you and Alexis don't know me much, at least not yet, I don't >find whatever you have to say about me very interesting at all. I do see, >however, that you don't mind judging somebody you know very little about. Alexis comments: One needs to know very little at all about a person who publically claims to be "A Chela of the Masters", and who publically claims to have been "In contact with the Masters for 20 years". Sorry but this is one of the few times I agree wholeheartedly with the conservative occult approach. "Anyone who makes public claims is making false claims". I also freely admit that based upon both study and experience I have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of anyone who takes either Mr. Ballard's "I am Movement" or Elisabeth Clair Prophet's "Church Universal and Triumphant" seriously. Ballard was a fraud who went to jail for swindling little old ladies out of their pensions, and Elisabeth Clair Prophet hasn't gone to jail yet! Bjorn, you clearly have delusions of grandeur. It only takes a few moments experience of you to realize that! >I'll give you a tip: If you want to hurt me, first get to know me and find >some of my weak spots and attack there. Then, MAYBE I'll get angry. Which, >if I understand the "game" you are playing correctly, would please you? > >Well, I will tell you what I see in you at this point, since you have very >generously been showing off some aspects of your personality : > >A good heart with a lot of positive feelings for other people. > >Also > >Immaturity and the selflimiting identification with the ideas of being an >obnoxious troublemaker. The worst problem seems to be that you actually >think you are HELPING people with this childish silliness. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Jun 2 07:53:40 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 03:53:40 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606020858.EAA27903@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: courtesy Alexis writes one has to admire or ignore Leadbeater to have some kind of relationship >with Leisel, I will forgo the pleasure. AlLiesel answers Alexis, my name is Liesel. It isn't at all that you don't like CWL, but rather that you get insulting. You did the same thing recently when you talked about Dora Kunz. She happens to be a very much loved, & highly respected elder stateslady of TS Wheaton. And all you can do is try to rip her down. Sorry, pal, but I won't stand for that. When you can keep a decent tongue in your head I might talk to you, but not if you deal in half truths & insults. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Jun 2 08:02:16 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 04:02:16 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606020907.FAA03402@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Bjorn Dear Bjorn, Yoou can get all the Annie Besant books you'd like by writing to The Theosophical Publishing House Box 270 Wheaton Ill. 60189 1-800-669 -9425 You can order books, or ask for their catalogue. But aks for the one which contains Besant books, because they're always publishing little flyers with a few titles listed on them. Liesel From Richtay@aol.com Sun Jun 2 10:08:13 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 06:08:13 -0400 From: Richtay@aol.com Message-Id: <960602060811_208725885@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions Dear Bjorn, I am one of those who have permanently signed off from Theos-L, among quite a few others I know. After over a year on it and quite a few fruitful discussions. I signed off a few weeks ago, after wanting to for a long time, when Eldon was brutally attacked in another pointless round of posts where the SUBSTANCE of what he said was rarely addressed, rather it was his CHARACTER and MOTIVE which was attacked. And it was **nasty**. No apologies were offered either. I had it. It is sad that after 10 years in the Theosophical movement, working hard, putting out a Theosophical newsmagazine, working in a local lodge, connecting with Theosophists all over the world, I didn't feel welcome on the very list where we should have all been able to come together, lovingly, and support each other in our work for the Movement. No luck. You should be informed, however, that a new list has been formed for the express purpose of discussing THEOSOPHY, its principles, and its practice, with NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed or the list owners WILL boot people off the list. The name of the list is THEOSOPHY WORLD and you can subscribe to theos-world@theosophy.com. Spread this info to whomever you think might be interested. I would be interested in getting to know you and your work in the movement, what books you read, what projects you're involved in, etc. Best wishes. Your brother, Rich Taylor From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 10:23:26 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 05:23:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: "Isis Unveiled" question In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Kym Isis Unveiled is a very fascinating book. One of the things that one may want to keep in view is that there are always exceptions to the rule. Sometimes these exceptions are more difficult to understand than the rule. You are right in that it is daunting task to read Secret Doctrine. Many of the books by Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater are much easier to read and understand. However, Theosophy being what it is, there are many who think only what HP Blavatsky wrote is authentic. It would be best for you read them for yourself and decide for yourself. .....Ramadoss On Sun, 2 Jun 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > I have begun reading "Isis Unveiled," finding it a wonderful and fascinating > read, although I have to have a dictionary lying next to me during these > reading sessions. I think this monograph will require many repeat readings > in order to better understand it. "The Secret Doctrine" is of course next - > although it too looks daunting. > > Am I understanding "correctly" when Ms. Blavatsky states that incarnation > into the physical more than once is an exception, rather than the rule? > That surprised me; I have read a bit about theosophy but hadn't come across > that viewpoint. I had read that Theosophy espouses to long periods (over > 1000 years) between incarnations, but that would allow for many more > incarnations than one or two. Yet, also, the long period of rest between > incarnations seems to go against Eastern philosophy which accepts even > immediate re-incarnations. > > Is there a publication or source which could help clarify or suggest a > consensus to these philosophies? Perhaps I am premature in my confusion - > will this be addressed in "The Secret Doctrine?" > > Thank You, > > Kym > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 10:34:38 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 05:34:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: courtesy In-Reply-To: <199606020858.EAA27903@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Alexis writes > > one has to admire or ignore Leadbeater to have some kind of relationship > >with Leisel, I will forgo the pleasure. > > AlLiesel answers > > Alexis, my name is Liesel. > > It isn't at all that you don't like CWL, but rather that you get insulting. > You did the same thing recently when you talked about Dora Kunz. She happens > to be a very much loved, & highly respected elder stateslady of TS Wheaton. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Liesel: I love this. This is what HPB meant when she talked about courageous defense of those injustly attacked. I may or may not agree with someone, but I respect those who have provided their services to TS and tried to propogate Theosophy to the best of their ability. ....Ramadoss > And all you can do is try to rip her down. Sorry, pal, but I won't stand for > that. When you can keep a decent tongue in your head I might talk to you, > but not if you deal in half truths & insults. > > > > Liesel > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 10:39:50 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 05:39:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Discussions In-Reply-To: <960602060811_208725885@emout08.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 2 Jun 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > Dear Bjorn, > > I am one of those who have permanently signed off from Theos-L, among quite a > few others I know. After over a year on it and quite a few fruitful > discussions. I signed off a few weeks ago, after wanting to for a long time, > when Eldon was brutally attacked in another pointless round of posts where > the SUBSTANCE of what he said was rarely addressed, rather it was his > CHARACTER and MOTIVE which was attacked. And it was **nasty**. No apologies > were offered either. I had it. > > It is sad that after 10 years in the Theosophical movement, working hard, > putting out a Theosophical newsmagazine, working in a local lodge, connecting > with Theosophists all over the world, I didn't feel welcome on the very list > where we should have all been able to come together, lovingly, and support > each other in our work for the Movement. No luck. Rich: You should know that many on this list, including me, enjoyed your posts as many were also very educative. So please feel free to post whenever you feel like. ....Ramadoss > > You should be informed, however, that a new list has been formed for the > express purpose of discussing THEOSOPHY, its principles, and its practice, > with NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed or the list owners WILL boot people off the > list. The name of the list is THEOSOPHY WORLD and you can subscribe to > theos-world@theosophy.com. > > Spread this info to whomever you think might be interested. > > I would be interested in getting to know you and your work in the movement, > what books you read, what projects you're involved in, etc. Best wishes. > > Your brother, > Rich Taylor > From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 10:56:38 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 05:56:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Blind Men and the Elephant Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here is some thing that we can think about. Theosophy was not officially defined when Theosophical Society was launched in 1875. There have been discussions on various issues relating to the unseen world and as such there is always a difference of opinion. This reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Just like each blind man tried to feel one part of the elephant and tried to generalize what the whole elephant looks like, we have Theosophy that we all try to attempt to describe or define or understand. Buddha, faced a somewhat similar situation dealing with various concepts that he tried to discuss. He stated that since there will always be difference in opinion on the unseen, it is easier to discuss those things which are seen. I think when new comers see all the discussion going on here and try to understand what Theosophy is, the above may help them understand why there is always differences of opinion or views etc. ...Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 11:17:45 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 06:17:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: To Donna In-Reply-To: <199606020005.UAA02314@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Donna: I very much liked your post and would like you to know about it. ...Ramadoss From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 2 15:59:39 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:59:39 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606021559.IAA07914@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Isis Unveiled" question: To Kym on Reincarnation and Isis Kym writes: >I have begun reading "Isis Unveiled," finding it a wonderful and fascinating >read, although I have to have a dictionary lying next to me during these >reading sessions. I think this monograph will require many repeat readings >in order to better understand it. "The Secret Doctrine" is of course next - >although it too looks daunting. > >Am I understanding "correctly" when Ms. Blavatsky states that incarnation >into the physical more than once is an exception, rather than the rule? >That surprised me; I have read a bit about theosophy but hadn't come across >that viewpoint. I had read that Theosophy espouses to long periods (over >1000 years) between incarnations, but that would allow for many more >incarnations than one or two. Yet, also, the long period of rest between >incarnations seems to go against Eastern philosophy which accepts even >immediate re-incarnations. > >Is there a publication or source which could help clarify or suggest a >consensus to these philosophies? Perhaps I am premature in my confusion - >will this be addressed in "The Secret Doctrine?" > >Thank You, > >Kym > Daniel replies: Kym, I would suggest that as you read Isis Unveiled that you also consult several other sources. In the Collected Writing Edition of Isis (edited by Boris de Zirkoff), Mr. de Zirkoff has written a very informative "Introductory" on "How 'Isis Unveiled' Was Written." (Vol1, 62 pp.----Wheaton, Ilinois, Theosophical Publishing House." In this Introductory, Mr. de Zirkoff (on pp. 43-5) goes over certain facts and "seeming discrepancies", especially concerning reincarnation. Also I would consult the "The Mahatma Letters" from the Masters M. and K.H., there are three differnt editions currently in print, but if you look in the index under "Isis Unveiled", you will see a good number of pages in which the Mahatmas make certain comments on the writing of Isis, etc. In one of the Mahatma Letters, Master Morya pens the following note to A.P. Sinnett: "By-the-bye, I'll re-write for you pages 345 to 357, Vol. I, of Isis---much jumbled and confused by Olcott, who thought he was improving it!", Letter No. 13, p. 75 in the 3rd Edition of the Mahatma Letters. Colonel Olcott served as one of the proof-readers for Isis and also "englished" some of the text for H.P.B. And in Madame Blavatsky's THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, the question is asked: "But does not the author of 'Isis Unveiled' stand accused of having preached against re-incarnation?" And HPB answers: "...At the time that work was written [1875-76-77)], re-incarnation was not believed in by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is said there of *re-incarnation* was directed against the French Spiritists....The Re-incarnationists of the Allan Kardec School believe in an arbitrary and immediate re-incarnation. With them, the dead father can incarnate in his own unborn daughter, and so on. They have neither Devachan, Karma, nor any philosophy that would warrant or prove the necessity of consecutive rebirths. But how can the author of 'Isis Unveiled' argue against *Karmic* reincarnation, at long intervals varying between 1,000 and 1,500 years, when it is the fundamental belief of both Buddhists and Hindus?" pp. 191-192 original edition. And as early as April 12, 1875, HPB mentions (in a letter to a correspondent) "Allan Kardec" and says: "...though I do not beieve in reincarnation in the same sense as the French spiritists...." There is much more that could be said on this subject. There are, in fact, a number of articles written by H.P.B. on this very subject of reincarnation and Isis. I'm glad that you are diving into Isis. I would suggest that you read it very slowly and with as much attention as you can muster. This will pay off for you later in your studies. Too many students read HPB's works like they would a novel or a newspaper! I'm also glad that you are intent upon reading later the Secret Doctrine. Before you read the Secret Doctrine, I would suggest that you read the following three books: THE OCCULT WORLD by A.P. Sinnett ESOTERIC BUDDHISM by A.P. Sinnett THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT Chronologically speaking: 1877 ISIS UNVEILED 1881 THE OCCULT WORLD 1883 ESOTERIC BUDDHISM [1880-5] THE MAHATMA LETTERS 1888 THE SECRET DOCTRINE Reading these books in chronological order will help you to see the *unfolding* of the teachings as given by H.P.B. and her Masters. Also, Kym, if you're interested, we can suggest other select articles by HPB which give additional insights as you read these works. Reading these works may be difficult for you. Do not let THAT deter you! The struggle to understand what you read will be very productive IN THE LONG RUN! If you're interested I will give you several quotes from the Mahatma Letters which give good advice on how to study the Theosophical teachings. Let me know and I will post them to you. Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell P.S. Also I will be most happy to help you obtain any of the above works that you do not have. Just let me know and I will give you ordering info, etc. or possibly some of these works can be borrowed either from your local library or elsewhere. Just let us know how we may help you. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 16:18:08 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:18:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602121808_316413639@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions You have not seen us begin to tear people apart. Stick around. Chuck the Atrocious Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 16:18:58 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:18:58 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602121857_316414045@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Jerry, Where have you been. Alex and I have been worried. You're right, psionics can be used both ways. It's supposed to be. That's why I wrote the books in the first place. In my experience I have seen a number the Joe Sixpacks of the world come into the TS and stay and have a wonderful experience. It is only hard if you take the books literally. Chuck the Obnoxious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Wolf From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 16:19:04 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:19:04 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602121903_316414106@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Sheep vs Wolves Jerry, Of course the sheep are stupid. They think they're chelas. Or, as Dora Kunz once asked me after seeing me argue fruitlessly with a devout and extremely stupid sheep for an entire afternoon, "Where did the Masters get him and how can we send him back?" Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Wolf in wolf's clothing From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 16:19:06 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:19:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602121906_316414130@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? Jerry, Hopefully, it will available soon. I have a similar problem and I am responsible for its creation even though it was done by a dear friend of mine. Chuck the Wolf MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker "Now let me see, where was recipe for roast chela?" From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 16:19:59 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:19:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602121908_316414151@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: More Sheep vs Wolves Jerry, The smart sheep may come back as wolves the next time, the dumb sheep have to wait seven incarnations and the idiot sheep who think they are chelas because a crook told them just go to avitchi and bother us no more. Chuck the Enlightened Wolf MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From eldon@theosophy.com Sun Jun 2 23:18:30 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:18:30 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602231830.006991f0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Isis Unveiled" question Kym: >Am I understanding "correctly" when Ms. Blavatsky states >that incarnation into the physical more than once is an >exception, rather than the rule? That surprised me; I have >read a bit about theosophy but hadn't come across that >viewpoint. I had read that Theosophy espouses to long >periods (over 1000 years) between incarnations, but that >would allow for many more incarnations than one or two. The general rule, as I've understood it, is perhaps thousands of years between lifetimes. There are, though, a number of factors that cause this to vary. Being in the Kali Yuga, or dark age, where the most spiritual advance is possible, being in incarnation is more desirable, and people have shorter after-death experiences. A greater percentage of people are embodied at any one time, and the population of the earth swells. People who die prematurely, by accident, may dwell in the earth's atmosphere, unconscious in kamaloka, for the duration of what their lives would have been. Or they may sometimes find immediate rebirth. There are other special cases where when a young child dies, an adept may take up life in the dying-child's body, and become its new occupant. (This is called "avesa".) For people with little spiritual content in their lives, there is little energies to be worked out in the after death states, and they'd find quicker rebirths. Some extreme cases would have almost immediate rebirth. (This does not mean that they're horribly unevolved individuals, but just that their current lifetime has been mostly a waste. We all have bad days where nothing seems to get done; on a bigger scale, sometimes there's a whole lifetime that has nothing to show for it.) On the other end of the scale, for Mahatmas, able to give tangible expression to all their inner spiritual urges, they'd have very short or non-existent after-death states, because in them all the higher energies that were felt in life were fulfilled; there was no unfulfilled dreams, longings, aspirations to fuel a heaven world experience (devachan in Theosophical books, or dewachan in Tibetan). >Yet, also, the long period of rest between incarnations seems >to go against Eastern philosophy which accepts even immediate >re-incarnations. As you see from above, although there are many exceptions that I won't have mentioned in this quick message, many do have short between-life experiences, although that is not the general rule. There are differences between Theosophy and Eastern philosophy, because it is a fresh presentation of the esoteric philosophy. (One example of these differences is that Theosophy says "once a man always a man", whereas some Eastern religions call for rebirth in lower forms like as animals.) Established religions and philosophies tend to decay over time, and need reformers to restore them to their original truths. Theosophy was an attempt at reform at Western thought, although it already shows its own signs of decay, finding itself buried in a mound of contradictory opinion of its would-be followers. >Is there a publication or source which could help clarify or >suggest a consensus to these philosophies? Perhaps I am premature >in my confusion - will this be addressed in "The Secret Doctrine?" There's a lot that is addressed in "The Secret Doctrine", but for the more basic questions that you ask, a good intermediate theosophical book might be helpful. Two I'd recommend would be "The Ocean of Theosophy" by W.Q. Judge and "The Esoteric Tradition" by G. de Purucker. Others on theos-l may recommend different books based upon their backgrounds. -- Eldon From eldon@theosophy.com Sun Jun 2 23:27:39 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:27:39 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602232739.006ac92c@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Buying Theosophical Books in Europe Bjorn: To get theosophical books in Europe, it can take quite a while to order from an American publishing house. Here are other, closer sources for theosophical literature: Gazelle Books Services, Ltd. Falcon House Queen Square Lancaster LA1 1RH UNITED KINGDOM They carry books by Point Loma Publications and perhaps by other theosophical publishers. Theosophical Library Center 33 Thornton Hill Exeter, Devon EX4 4NR UNITED KINGDOM They are the representatives of the T.S. Pasadena. Theosophical Publishing House [London] 50 Gloucester Place London W1H 4EA UNITED KINGDOM These are the most likely to carry Annie Besant's books. -- Eldon From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 2 18:05:03 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:05:03 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606021805.LAA18380@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Attention: Liesel and Alexis Liesel and Alexis, In my opinion, both of you need to cool it with each other. If either one of you wants to write spiteful things about each other, e-mail each other privately. Please spare the rest of us! Come on, shake hands over cyberspace and stop those painful words. You are both human and apparently you two just don't relate well to each other! Alexis apologized and I hope you Liesel will do also. I am not taking sides and I am not trying to be a mediator, but nothing is being gained by this name calling ,etc. Why can't the two of you discuss CWL without getting into a cyberspace fist fight? Alexis, if you have facts on CWL, present them. And Liesel, if you know differently, then present the facts on the other side. But can't this be done with some cool, calm deliberation instead of what all of this has degenerated into? I know you probably both feel strongly about the issue under consideration, but all this personal "back and forth" is negative and serves no useful, constructive purpose for either one of you or for the rest of us. Daniel >At 08:38 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: > >> >>At 08:08 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> Thank you for your kind words. I want to add one. When Alexis >>>decided to pick a fight with Martin Euser, he didn't even have enough >>>respect for Martin as a person to get his last name right. He just hit out, >>>blindly, & part of that was the misspelling of Martin's name. For shame! And >>>that calls itself a shaman! >>> >>>Liesel >>> >>> >>> >>roxendal@alpinet.net >> >> >>This is directed to the entire list. > >That is an example of the constant stream of invective that proceeds from >that source. If I am constantly taking to task for ignoring her except once, >for which I immediately apologized, then where are her responsibilities to me? > >I was, and still am under the impression that Martin's last name was EULER >If it isn't I was wrong. But her implication that I misspelled his name out >of malice is totally insane. > >Now, when we get down to malice, and viciousness, how do we describe calling >another Human Being a "that"? > >I also wasn't under any impression that I had picked a fight with Martin, >and we are having some interesting and lively discussions, with no really >sharp disagreements that I can see. > >As far as to my qualifications to being a shaman, she has no basis of >comparison. When she can cure the very sick (animals too) as frequently as I >do, she can begin to judge me. > >And all this because I presume to tell the truth about someone she forbids >me to do so about! > >Now this is an example of the "double standard" that people on this list >exercise that I complain so bitterly about. Never, ever, not once, on this >board have I spewed streams of invective and spite, and yet Liesel is >sympathized with and I am castigated. For Shame indeed! > >alexis > > > From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 18:54:57 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 11:54:57 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602185457.006b294c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Isis Unveiled" question At 03:10 AM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >I have begun reading "Isis Unveiled," finding it a wonderful and fascinating >read, although I have to have a dictionary lying next to me during these >reading sessions. I think this monograph will require many repeat readings >in order to better understand it. "The Secret Doctrine" is of course next - >although it too looks daunting. Alexis comments: An important thing to remember Kym, while you use your dictionary, is that HPB was only just familiarizing herself with English when she wrote "Isis". English wasn't her second language but far more likely her seventh or eighth. If I might suggest something though, it probably wouldn't be too good an idea to go directly from "Isis" to the "Secret Doctrine", they are very different books and both of them are difficult though in entirely different ways. The possible problem is "burn out". Too much at once, can burn the most dedicated scholar out. It might be a good idea to read some books about Theosophy from all sorts of viewpoints, and then go back to the "hard stuff". > >Am I understanding "correctly" when Ms. Blavatsky states that incarnation >into the physical more than once is an exception, rather than the rule? >That surprised me; I have read a bit about theosophy but hadn't come across >that viewpoint. I had read that Theosophy espouses to long periods (over >1000 years) between incarnations, but that would allow for many more >incarnations than one or two. Yet, also, the long period of rest between >incarnations seems to go against Eastern philosophy which accepts even >immediate re-incarnations. Alexis comments: The second object of the theosophical movement is the comparative study of religions, philosophies, and sciences. This is where that object comes into play. One should make a study of what all the points of view on the subject of incarnation and reincarnation are, and compare them for points of contact. > >Is there a publication or source which could help clarify or suggest a >consensus to these philosophies? Perhaps I am premature in my confusion - >will this be addressed in "The Secret Doctrine?" Alexis comments: I don't think there is any one source available to answer your questions in any kind of authoritative manner. But it's the study of all of the various sources that is the most productive of the growth of understanding. No one source is ever the "absolute truth", not Blavatsky, not anyone, and she would have been the first to tell you this. > >Thank You, > >Kym > Best wishes in your adventure. alexis dolgorukii > From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 18:59:43 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 11:59:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602185943.006b355c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: courtesy At 06:37 AM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > >> And all you can do is try to rip her down. Sorry, pal, but I won't stand for >> that. When you can keep a decent tongue in your head I might talk to you, >> but not if you deal in half truths & insults. >> >> >> >> Liesel >> >> > >Leisel: I have absolutely no desire to "talk" to you at all. I've had enough of your invective and insults. Your perceptions of anything I say are so blinded by your antipathy to me that it's not worth the effort. I'll leave you "filtered" thank you. I have no intention of insulting you, either publically or privately, but I see absolutely no reason to subject myself to your hatefulness. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 2 19:09:34 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 12:09:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960602190934.006b1b6c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis At 02:07 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: Daniel: I thank you for your intelligent words. But there's nothing to worry about, there will be no further contact between myself and Leisel on any subject at all. I've had all I am about to put up with and as far as I can see there's just nothing at all of value to be gained by anybody in continuing the contact. I've apologized for an angry and stupid comment I made in the spate of hot temper. As far as I can see there's absolutely no chance at all of Leisel ever apologizing, so forget it. She is so blind sided by her antipathy to me that no matter what I say she warps it to some kind of negative action. Tutti finito! alexis From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 17:18:19 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 13:18:19 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606021920.AA29694@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Buying Theosophical Books in Europe At 12:41 PM 6/2/96 -0400, Eldon wrote: > >To get theosophical books in Europe, it can take quite a while >to order from an American publishing house. Thank you, but since I now live in the US I will try to order from Illinois. Bjorn > roxendal@alpinet.net From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 2 19:23:04 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:23:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Buying Theosophical Books in Europe In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960602232739.006ac92c@mail.deltanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Probably TPH London may also be a good source. ....ramadoss From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 17:31:30 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 13:31:30 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606021933.AA29790@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis At 02:07 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Liesel and Alexis, >In my opinion, both of you need to cool it with each other. If either one >of you wants to write spiteful things about each other, e-mail each other >privately. If personal vendettas are necessary, private E-mail is the right place for them. Please spare the rest of us! Indeed. I have received email from a former listmember who came to a point when this list seemed to be a nightmare or even "curse" to him. all this personal "back and forth" is >negative and serves no useful, constructive purpose for either one of you or >for the rest of us. This, I think, is the key issue. As long as these tendencies dominate on the list, the purpose for which the list was created is compromised, which is an understatement. Many intelligent, mature and constructive members are unsubscribing. Unless the listowner takes action, this list is likely to be a lost cause. New lists are forming and will replace this one as a meeting place for constructive theosophists. Bjorn > > >>At 08:38 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >>> >>>At 08:08 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>> Thank you for your kind words. I want to add one. When Alexis >>>>decided to pick a fight with Martin Euser, he didn't even have enough >>>>respect for Martin as a person to get his last name right. He just hit out, >>>>blindly, & part of that was the misspelling of Martin's name. For shame! And >>>>that calls itself a shaman! >>>> >>>>Liesel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>roxendal@alpinet.net >>> >>> >>>This is directed to the entire list. >> >>That is an example of the constant stream of invective that proceeds from >>that source. If I am constantly taking to task for ignoring her except once, >>for which I immediately apologized, then where are her responsibilities to me? >> >>I was, and still am under the impression that Martin's last name was EULER >>If it isn't I was wrong. But her implication that I misspelled his name out >>of malice is totally insane. >> >>Now, when we get down to malice, and viciousness, how do we describe calling >>another Human Being a "that"? >> >>I also wasn't under any impression that I had picked a fight with Martin, >>and we are having some interesting and lively discussions, with no really >>sharp disagreements that I can see. >> >>As far as to my qualifications to being a shaman, she has no basis of >>comparison. When she can cure the very sick (animals too) as frequently as I >>do, she can begin to judge me. >> >>And all this because I presume to tell the truth about someone she forbids >>me to do so about! >> >>Now this is an example of the "double standard" that people on this list >>exercise that I complain so bitterly about. Never, ever, not once, on this >>board have I spewed streams of invective and spite, and yet Liesel is >>sympathized with and I am castigated. For Shame indeed! >> >>alexis >> >> >> > > > roxendal@alpinet.net From euser@euronet.nl Sun Jun 2 20:15:56 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:15:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606022015.WAA15844@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? First a snippet out of a conversation between Chuck and Alexis: Alexis>You know that Martin will in all likelihood take every word you just said totally seriously. Martin comments: no, not really. I know Chuck a little bit better than that (at least I think I do :)) Alexis> He's Dutch (I think) [yes] and they are as entirely literal as any German or Slav. Martin comments: a totally sweeping generalization (to imitate your style :)). Actually my country is oriented very much towards the USA. The folks here are as different from each other as in any country. The main flaw here is the imitation of American soap opera's. We shouldn't do that. The Americans have invented that and nobody can do that kind of stuff better than ye yankies :) Now to the serious stuff Alexis>I submit that you haven't been on this list long enough to make a creditable evaluation of the overall thrust of my messages Martin comments: I'm not evaluating the overall thrust of your messages, I'm trying to sense what's happening on this list. Alexis> I submit that to judge all my messages by jocular messages between Chuck Cosiman and myself is entirely unfair and irresponsible. Martin comments: of course and nobody (I hope) is doing that. Alexis>I submit that to judge me at all doesn't lie within your purview or authority. Martin comments: I'm not judging you at all - this seems to be a hangup of you. If you read my posts more carefully, you will see that I'm concerned what's going on on this list. And I'm not putting all the fault on your shoulders-see my posting Re: Donna; Re: Chuck & Alexis. ALexis>I submit that it is my perception that the greatest motivation behind your judgemental attitude towards me derives from the entirely unorthodox approach I have to what Eldon and Daniel call the "Core Doctrines" of Theosophy, and that I believe is the ONLY thing that drives you. Martin comments: actually you're wrong in your perception. My greatest drive is a search for truth in these matters. Why do you think I' m discussing your point of view with you at length? Think about that! Alexis>If you would go through my postings since I joined the board you would find that, with the exception of my "games" with Chuck Cosimano, the majority of my messages have been thoughtful, original, and entirely unorthodox. Martin comments> well, when I have the opportunity I will check out the archives of John Mead. Alexis> But I also submit that the actual content of my messages on this board are of really little interest to you. Martin comments: well, well. I submit that projecting *your ideas * about the motives of others into these others is one of your flaws (as it probably is with all of us) :) >Indeed. But that's not the issue here (except for the Leadbeater case). Alexis>Please explain the sentence above. I don't wish to misunderstand you. Martin comments: I wrote that sentence because I suspect that factual information on Leadbeater is not appreciated by many on this forum (and that this information triggers many angry responses). Martin (prev)>The issue is, or rather has become: personal attacks on each other. Alexis> In the first place, if you had been on this list long enough to follow the whole situation, you would find that I am not entirely at fault. I have been accused of things that in my own estimation, I did not do. Martin comments> That's quite possible (would have to check that). Alexis> The problem with Liesel Deutsch originated when she violently reacted to my total disapproval of Charles Webster Leadbeater, my mistake was, and I freely admit it, to let my Russian temper get the best of me and replied in kind. When something I say is true, and is backed up by vast amounts of printed evidence, I do not accept being told that I cannot discuss the subject. Martin comments: I regard Liesel as a very friendly lady and a 'cyber-friend' but I know she won't tolerate strong disapprovals of Charles Leadbeater. It is understandable: loyalty to one's teacher is a strong thing , yet not always wise if carried to the extreme. I mean, you can be loyal to someone and yet disapprove of some of his/her actions. That distinction is something many people find very hard to swallow. In other words: you can condemn some act of a person, but, by doing so, you don't condemn the whole of the person, the whole of his/her character. I take it that you condemned many of his acts and views, but not the person Leadbeater? Alexis> I have "filtered" Liesel and you'll find if you read her postings that a great many of them are entirely gratuitous attacks on me, on my veracity, on my intelligence, and on my honor. Martin comments> There are some postings of her that attack you. Personally, I see these as born out of anger (though I would have to confirm that vision by retracing the history of this conflict.) Alexis>And yet you apparently feel that I, who have only replied to one particularly scurrilous remark in a fit of anger (and immediately apologized) am entirely and singly at fault. That is unacceptably unfair. Martin comments: I have nuanced and elaborated my vision on this in this post and the other (RE: Donna; Re: Chuck & Alexis). So you see I'm a little bit more unbiased than you may think. Alexis> But I will tell you that this campaign to make me the "demon" of this list is slanderous, libelous, and totally undeserved. Martin comments: I'm feeling annoyed about this, and wish there would be some 'truce' to begin with, and an attempt at reaching a better mutual understanding. Alexis> You seem to operate on the premise that to be accused of something makes one guilty, well that may be true in Roman Law but it is not true in American Law. Martin comments: well, not really. I'm beginning to see more sides, facets, to this conflict. But, probably for 'historical' reasons (what happened during your stay on this list to you, by you (?)) , you seem to make a lot of 'noise' (I mean, you very strongly defend yourself against accusations made against you) and a lot of people feel disturbed by that. I'm not saying you're 'guilty', your temper causes you a lot of trouble, that's for sure. You acknowledged that yourself (see a quoted response of yours above re Russian temper). Alexis>I have been accused of "Bashing" Eldon Tucker, but the accusation is untrue, I disagreed with both his statement and his attitudes, that is indeed true, but that is not "bashing". Martin comments: I agree with you here Alexis>On the other hand I have been bashed for that illusionary action far more times than I find acceptable. Martin comments> There has been a strong reaction, yes, from many sides. Whether this is to be classified as 'bashing' is a matter of further discussion. >Anyway, I'm glad you withdraw your remark about Liesel as Alan rightly >requested. > Alexis>I'd have apologized far sooner and well before Alan's request but I know that Liesel has me filtered so how would she see it? Martin comments: Someone will sure forward that to her. And maybe she's not really filtering you, but only refusing to get into discussion/debate with you. >Again to this 'self-appointed censor' thing. It sounds as a hollow phrase to >me, because it is used too often by you (and Chuck sometimes). You're not >dealing >with kids on this list, but with grown-ups who *do* have some standards of >behaviour.. >Maybe you will have more success with this style of communicating >on alt.theosophy (if there are many young people on it), but this style >is often contra-productive on this board. Alexis> I find the attempts at censorship on this board far too one sided, far too personality specific, and infinitely far too indicative of an entirely hypocritical double standard. There seems to be one standard for myself and Chuck, and an entirely different standard for others. Martin comments> Well, you may be right here. It *is* something we have to look at more closely. I wonder what others are thinking about this. Alan? others? Alexis> I also think it's presumptuous of you to imply that people who are young are either ignorant or unintelligent. Martin comments: that was not really my intention to imply. My thoughts concerned the straightforwardness of your postings. That might appeal more to youngsters, who have no history of being affiliated with one of the TSs. >Now, having said this, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in your *ideas*. >In fact, I'm going to discuss your views on karma and reincarnation thoroughly >with you, if you can stand severe scrutiny and dissecting of your opinions >on these things. > >Martin Euser > Alexis>You know Martin; my opinions have been subject to scrutiny and dissection for many years, and by people with strings of Doctorates inches long. Alan Bain is a person who severly scritinizes and criticizes my opinions regularly and I have no trouble with it. Martin comments: ok. Just thought you might be a little bit sensitive to severe criticism or scrutiny of your opinions. Apparently you aren't. Alexis>You apparently are extremely pleased with yourself, and I have no reason to doubt either your intelligence or your knowledge. But, I'd thank you to return the compliment. Martin comments: hot tempered you will remain, I guess :) Alexis>I have three hundred students all over this planet, most of them mature and well-educated people, when you insult me, you insult them. Martin comments: no way, I try to approach each individual as a unique being. >And whence this sulky posting of yours if it concerns only 'jocular vein'? >There is evidently a contradiction between tone and content here.. Alexis>This is entirely your personal perception Martin, and I think "sulky" is a word one uses to children and I am probably your senior. Martin comments: chagrin was the word I was meaning.I changed that to sulky after looking into a dictionary (but apparently I picked the wrong word). Martin (prev)> So, I *do* know about it, actually >more than I would like to. I will say one thing however, and it is this: >even if you're right about Leadbeater (Jerry H-E has in the past mentioned >some documentary evidence regarding the 'Leadbeater case'), even then >it is far wiser to take someone's [substitute: Liesel] feelings into account >and not try to put [push] your idea's through someone's throat. Alexis> They're not "ideas" Martin they are facts! Martin comments: facts may be harder to swallow for some persons > Don't you think you might actually accomplish more >if you would be a little more considerate at times? Alexis>If you'd been on the list at that time, you'd know that I started out by being very considerate indeed. I dropped the subject entirely and didn't even refer to it. It was only when CWL unavoidably came up in a context divorced from his pederasty and I disagreed with him on some philosophical matters, that Liesel "went off like a rocket". How about Liesel being considerate of my feelings? Eh? Martin comments: of course, I would expect consideration from Liesel as well. >Can't you show a little more of that [respect] to her? Alexis> It's far too late for that Martin, I will, if I can, have no further contact with her at all. I don't really like dealing with people who call you names when you disagree with them. Martin comments: Like I said before: understandable, and I see no way to do something about it. It is between you and Liesel. And, only when the majority of this list would start having a good look at the roots of this conflict, then, maybe, something would change in their attitude towards you. > >Friendly, > >Martin Euser > I am nobody's enemy Martin. alexis> > Martin From euser@euronet.nl Sun Jun 2 20:16:09 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:16:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606022016.WAA15870@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis Liesel wrote: > >At 08:08 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >> Thank you for your kind words. I want to add one. When Alexis >>decided to pick a fight with Martin Euser, he didn't even have enough >>respect for Martin as a person to get his last name right. Martin comments: some persons take more care of checking names, whether they've spelled these correct than others. I don't bother too much when my name is being misspelled. It is the individual's own responsibility to correctly enter names, data, etc. into their messages. I would suggest, though, in general, that the larger the forum the more one should take the trouble to have names, etc. correctly typed in. Its a courtesy to the other readers and will prevent misunderstandings as to whom is referred. Liesel>>He just hit out, >>blindly, & part of that was the misspelling of Martin's name. Martin comments: I certainly don't hope that that was the case. I doubt it; Sometimes, however, I get the impression that there's a 'red aura' hanging around some of Alexis postings. I get the impression that Alexis is really angered about something . The point may be that some injustice has been actually done towards him and I would like to see it clarified. (Alan, others??) Not having been subscribed long enough I cannot see the root of it, although it wouldn't surprise me when it turns out to be once again related to C.W. Leadbeater. I sometimes wonder whether Liesel can bear any criticism at all on beloved persons. Not an easy thing though, and it seems only wise to take that into consideration. >>For shame! And that calls itself a shaman! >> >>Liesel >> >> Alexis>That is an example of the constant stream of invective that proceeds from that source. If I am constantly taking to task for ignoring her except once, for which I immediately apologized, then where are her responsibilities to me? Martin comments: the way I see it is that you BOTH have responsibilities to each other, Liesel included. I still am not sure whether it is the factual content of your messages in the past concerning Leadbeater has started this war of words OR the tone of the (yours and Liesels) messages. Would have to wait until John has archived all the postings. One thing is certain: the Leadbeater case is an explosive mixture which can easily be detonated. And I don't like the way that Liesel adds more fuel to the fire of hatred that's going on between you two. Alexis>I was, and still am under the impression that Martin's last name was EULER If it isn't I was wrong. But her implication that I misspelled his name out of malice is totally insane. Martin comments: well, Liesel, I appreciate your motives to come to my rescue, but I don't have a real fight with Alexis, some skirmishes perhaps. I don't think Alexis misspelled my name intentionally, I would not know of one reason why he would. Alexis>I also wasn't under any impression that I had picked a fight with Martin, and we are having some interesting and lively discussions, with no really sharp disagreements that I can see. Martin comments: Right and I intend to keep it that way. Disagreements need not lead into flame wars. I don't have the slightest need for that kind of thing. Alexis>And all this because I presume to tell the truth about someone she forbids me to do so about! Martin comments: what is the purpose of discussing Leadbeater's flaws? It distracts the attention of many on this list from the more important things we should be discussing (IMO). Alexis>Now this is an example of the "double standard" that people on this list exercise that I complain so bitterly about. Never, ever, not once, on this board have I spewed streams of invective and spite, and yet Liesel is sympathized with and I am castigated. For Shame indeed! Martin comments> It may be very well that there's a double standard on this list. I suggest we have a *closer look* at it and be more careful from now on. People who make their point too strongly, being (too?) straightforward will often get themselves into difficulties with others, who don't like this kind of approach. Fact of life, mon ami, and I doubt whether you can change that. Often it is wiser to soften (temper) ones straightforwardness a little bit. Martin From eldon@theosophy.com Mon Jun 3 03:17:29 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 20:17:29 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603031729.006829c0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions Chuck: >You have not seen us begin to tear people apart. >Stick around. You're kidding, I hope??? The more savage a manner that someone tears apart others, the more they prove to the world that they "haven't got it" as far as spiritual insight. They may not see this themselves, but it's quite obvious to others that observe what is going on. This is different, of course, from where a great spiritual reformer is tearing apart the old cobwebs that hide the light from people. But in this case, the reformer is cleaning out the philosophy and practices of people, not slaying the followers of the old way. The reason, I suspect, that you've held back in your responses, and not let people "really have it!" is the same that most of us hold back. It's called "self respect". The terrible things that we tell others that they are really say more about our own states and experiences than they are descriptive of the other people. On alt.theosophy, if people really let loose with their worst sides, they'll run the risk of getting buried in a mound of dung from the thousands of readers than don't care a bit about what they say, but only enjoy the game of "ripping people". I'm not sure how you intend to write on that newsgroup, but as for myself, I'll give extra care to my words, considering the different and far wider audience reading them. -- Eldon From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 19:15:41 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 15:15:41 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606022117.AA00512@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 04:34 AM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alexis comments: One needs to know very little at all about a person who >publically claims to be "A Chela of the Masters", There are many chelas in the theosophic movement. One of the reasons it was founded was to provide an environment for chelas and would-be chelas to meet and receive training. At this point I am assuming that you do not KNOW if I or another student is a chela or not. IF you really KNOW that I am not a chela, that necessarily implies that I have been deluded. So, do you KNOW this, or are you just making assumptions based on your understanding of the "conservative occult approach" etc? and who publically claims >to have been "In contact with the Masters for 20 years". I wrote that the first time in this lifetime I made a conscious connection with a real Master, was about 20 years ago. That happened to be Jesus, which was all the more baffling to me because I had a history of being a fervent opponent to christianity, and Jesus had previously not had any significant place in my then only just budding spiritual life. You seem to think that mentioning these things is inappropriate or a sign of "delusion". It's interesting that you hang on to this portion of the "conservative occult approach" while challenging so many other aspects of it. Well, I DO think it is OK and sometimes even important to bear witness of these things, and I am sure you recognize my right to do so. I certainly recognize your right to consider me deluded, too, although I would not be so quick to take that approach myself. When I cannot absolutely know if somebody's claims are true, I prefer to take the gentler "wait and see" approach. Sorry but this is >one of the few times I agree wholeheartedly with the conservative occult >approach. I also >freely admit that based upon both study and experience I have absolutely no >respect for the intelligence of anyone who takes either Mr. Ballard's "I am >Movement" or Elisabeth Clair Prophet's "Church Universal and Triumphant" >seriously. I definitely take both Mr Ballard's "I Am Movement" and ECP's CUT seriously. I realize that this means that you "have absolutely no respect for my intelligence" and, to put it bluntly, I couldn't care less. I also take "Bridge to Freedom", "Agni yoga" and Yogananda seriously. I see all these activities and their teachings as expressions of truth, and, yes, as sponsored by the Brotherhood. Talking about intelligence in this context, I read a book by James Lewis and Gordon Melton, called "Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective". This is a special issue of "Syzygy: Journal of Alternative Religion and Culture".* On the back page it is stated that "Church Universal and Triumphant is a New Religious movement in the Theosophical tradition". The research team conducted personality and intelligence tests on many hundreds of Church members. The only really outstanding result was the deviation from the average population in intelligence. The average church member was shown to be dramatically more intelligent than the average american. I suspect that the same would be true if a large number of theosophists would be tested. Anyway, you have very little (no) objective support for assuming that members of these organizations should be lacking in intelligence, whereas I at least have SOME support for the opposite assumption. Bjorn * This Journal can be of interest to theosophists who are interested in a more objective study of modern religious movements, see http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jmb5b/syzygy.html for more info. One problem with new spiritual movements is that they are usually VERY controversial. Just look at early Teosophy! Or early Christianity! There are always these lawsuits and controversies, designed to malign and tear down something that is perceived as threatening. This happened to Mr. Ballard and the I Am movement, as well as to Blavatsky et al. This doesn't mean that they were not who they were supposed to be. The work of SYZYGY is very helpful in establishing a more detached and neutral perspective on such movements. The following is taken from their web page: > Syzygy is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the study of >New Religious Movements (NRMs). In addition to the usual groups >studied under the NRM label, Syzygy publishes articles and book reviews >on the New Age Movement, communal and utopian groups, Identity >groups, Spiritualism, New Thought, occultism, Neo-Paganism, astrology, >UFO groups, and related phenomena. Scholars with interests in these >areas are encouraged to submit papers and book reviews. For an index to >back issues, please click here. roxendal@alpinet.net From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 22:38:21 1996 Date: 02 Jun 96 18:38:21 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Discussions (to Rich Taylor) Message-Id: <960602223821_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> Rich: >It is sad that after 10 years in the Theosophical movement, working hard, >putting out a Theosophical newsmagazine, working in a local lodge, connecting >with Theosophists all over the world, I didn't feel welcome on the very list >where we should have all been able to come together, lovingly, and support >each other in our work for the Movement. No luck. Rich, I hope that you have read my Wolf vs Sheep post, even though you have permanently signed off. You are, of course, a very nice and respectable sheep, and I know how the big bad wolves have hurt your feelings, and made you run away to a better and safer place. I really am sorry. I probably did as much as any of the other wolves here to do you in. But at least our motives are clear. We are, in fact, trying to help. Your idea of working harmoniously together in a happy Theosophical fold to help the Movement is well meant, but misguided (at least in this wolf's opinion). Theosophy must clean its own house first, before we can ask 6 bizzillion Joe Sixpacks to come aboard. We have a lot of internal work to do first. I would think that first and foremost, we need to define Theosophy, and "core teachings" one way or another. We also need to put the CWL business behind us and move forward. The latter, of course, needn't concern you, because you are not in TSA anyway, but even your negative views (as you clearly expressed them here) must transform into forgiveness before the Joe Sixpacks can be brought into the tent. For us all to pretend to be harmonious and happy little theosophists would be play false, and even Joe Sixpack would catch on in no time. We wolves prefer honesty. Lets us theosophists come together and learn how we can all agree with one another before we pull in a whole bunch of newbies who will look to us for theosophical role modeling. >You should be informed, however, that a new list has been formed for the >express purpose of discussing THEOSOPHY, its principles, and its practice, >with NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed or the list owners WILL boot people off the >list. The name of the list is THEOSOPHY WORLD and you can subscribe to >theos-world@theosophy.com. The problem with this is that it is all based on a false premise-- that all theosophists are happy and content with the teachings left to us. Such a list will certainly be no more than a bunch a sheep smelling the clover and believing all is well in the world. Its a lot like Eldon worrying about the "dark side of life." You will all be like dogs chasing after your own tails. You will all need at least seven more lifetimes to see how the land really lays. Only in chaos do new forms emerge. The chances for a new and whole Theosophical Movement are better here on theos-l for this very reason. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 22:38:22 1996 Date: 02 Jun 96 18:38:22 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant Message-Id: <960602223822_76400.1474_HHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Doss: >This reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Just like >each blind man tried to feel one part of the elephant and tried to >generalize what the whole elephant looks like, we have Theosophy that we >all try to attempt to describe or define or understand. > >Buddha, faced a somewhat similar situation dealing with various concepts >that he tried to discuss. He stated that since there will always be >difference in opinion on the unseen, it is easier to discuss those things >which are seen. The real difference between Buddhism and Theosophy, Doss, is that Theosophy attempts to define reality, while Buddhism provides techniques and leaves reality itself undefined in words. Theosophy is theoretical, while Buddhism is practical. This is exactly why Carl Jung called Theosophy "lazy thinking" -- because theosophists who study the literature over a long period of time become convinced (falsely) that they know everything. The idea that one can understand life, and what life is all about, from reading books, is indeed lazy thinking. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 2 22:38:30 1996 Date: 02 Jun 96 18:38:30 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Message-Id: <960602223830_76400.1474_HHL29-3@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >Where have you been. Alex and I have been worried. >You're right, psionics can be used both ways. It's supposed to be. That's >why I wrote the books in the first place. >In my experience I have seen a number the Joe Sixpacks of the world come into >the TS and stay and have a wonderful experience. It is only hard if you take >the books literally. Chuck, I just finished my dissertation, and at long last, have my PhD. Among other goodies, this will doubtless sell several more copies of my books (I am retired and need the money folks) all by itself. The fact that magic is also a two-edged sword is exactly why I started writing my books, Chuck. I watched too many people burning their fingers through ignorance. There may be a few Joe Sixpacks who stay with Theosophy, but I still don't think that the membership will ever be up there where it was before the infamous K incident. I hope that I am wrong. When I came into Theosophy, I too tried to take the literature literally, and very seriously. But by that time, I had already been initiated into Kundalini Yoga, and had a few mystical experiences to hand, so I was able to sift a lot of chaff from wheat right off the bat. Thus I was unable to ever be a real sheep. Maybe a wolfish-sheep, or a sheepish-wolf? The root problem here is that our worldview has to address, and assimilate, our experiences. If we have certain experiences that are simply not covered in the TS literature, then we must expand our concept of Theosophy to address that. If we have experiences that conflict with TS literature or Core Teachings, then our worldview must also address that--because we must always tweak our worldview to account for our experiences. The only alternative is to ignore those experiences and such repression always leads to pathological conditions downstream. I have been successful with this for the most part, by employing the terms exoteric and esoteric to ideas or teachings. Now I know that both you and Alexis don't care for those terms, but they really have been a big help to me. Karma and reincarnation, for example, as taught by Judge and G de P are very acceptable to me as long as I consider them to be exoteric teachings. In other words, the way they are taught in the TS literature is simply not the way I experience or intuitively see them. So, I call my own view esoteric, and thus can assimilated both the literature and my experiences into my worldview very nicely. Otherwise, I probably would have left Theosophy a long time ago. Eldon is right when he says that the words of the Core Teachings point to a body of esoteric (wordless) teachings that have to be experienced. So, after we bring in a bizzillion Joe Sixpacks and their families, how do we get them away from a literal interpretation? Jerry S. Member, TI From jem@vnet.net Sun Jun 2 23:07:41 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:07:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199606022307.TAA11589@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: "Moderating" lists etc. hi - just a quick note to reaffirm that I do not support moderating this list. my experience has been that trying to control Theosophists is ultimately "un-theosophical". peace - john e. mead ------------------------------------------------------------------------ John E. Mead jem@vnet.net Theos-L etc. list-owner Member of Theosophy International [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 2 23:16:13 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:16:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Buying Theosophical Books in Europe In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Probably TPH London may also be a good source. > > ....ramadoss > It is now necessary to write to Theosophical Books Ltd., 50 Gloucester Place, London W1H 4EA. Tel: +44 171 935 5265 Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:19:00 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:19:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602191858_405788620@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Earl Grey Council Doss, It is my friend, it is! I have learned the ripco problem is at their end and with a little patience I will on the newsgroup soon. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:19:44 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:19:44 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602191943_405788968@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! Roxendal, I do not find your presence disturbing. I find it insulting and disgusting. You are free to express any nonsense you wish, but when you attack the freedom that my ancestors threw a king out for you insult our people. I have attempted a reasonable discourse with you and all I have received in return are attacks. You clearly have no interest in anything but that which fits your own little world and cannot see any other way of approaching theosophy or life. Frankly anyone who so damnably stupid as to think that a fraud like Ballard could say anyone is a chela is in no position to judge anyone else. Fortunately you are going on my filter list and I will no longer have to put up with your fascist garbage. Chuck the Obnoxious From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:19:53 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:19:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602191952_405789057@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? Alex, I know all about the dutch. Dutch girls are also very good in bed and they love my whip collection. There was this real cute one who used to work at the Art Institute... Happy Marquis de Sade's birthday. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:20:07 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:20:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602192006_405789178@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: many times great grandpa Alex, Why does that not surprise me? Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker "Ten thousand Swedes ran through the weeds At the battle of Copenhagen. Ten thousand Swedes ran through the weeds Running from one Norwegian." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:20:11 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:20:11 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602192008_405789198@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Alex, How about the Mad Meatball in White Sauce Award? Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker "How many Swedes does it take to change a light bulb?" "Only one, but he can't afford to pay the taxes on it." From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:20:13 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:20:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602192011_405789224@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis Alex, A very good reply. I would have sent somethingsimilar by at that moment my girlfriend was complaining that the chains were too tight. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker Where is the little Dutch boy when we need him and I don't mean Martin? From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:20:17 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:20:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602192016_405789262@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! Alex, I have sent my last message to this moron. He is now on my filter list. Anyone who is damned fool enough to think he is a chela because that crook Ballard told him (no doubt after being paid for the initiation, that was the usual procedure I'm told) is not worth the bandwidth to argue with. My patience is at an end. Chuck the Atrocious Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:20:19 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:20:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602192019_405789282@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions Rich It's nice to see you are still dropping in occassion, if only to castigate us. I wish you the best on theos-world, but for obvious reasons I will not be joining it. After campaigning against moderating this list I cannot in conscience join one that is moderated. And of course no moderation will be considered for alt.theosophy. One other thing, this all began with a personal attack on me by the mad chela (he apparently really thinks he is one). I normally do not let such things disturb me, but even I have a few chinks in rhinocerous hide. I thought it was meant in jest but clearly the man is not kidding. He really equates anyone who disagrees with his way of doing things with a madman who blows people up for real. I attempted a reasoned discourse with him but that has proven impossible so I am forced to filter him, which is something I really hate doing but my blood pressure won't take much more of his nonsense so if I seem just a bit testy, please be patient. I doubt you will find him a pleasant person to have on theos-world. But I wish you the best with your project. And do drop in again. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:23:59 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:23:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960602192359_405791172@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: "Moderating" lists etc. John, Thank goodness! I knew we could count on you. Now maybe we can get back to arguing over theosophy again. Chuck From RIhle@aol.com Sun Jun 2 23:44:59 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:44:59 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960602194459_126236502@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Bleat and Howl [One should] "bleat with the sheep and howl with the wolves." --Gurdjieff, I think, but perhaps someone else. Well, I don't know about this "sheep and wolves thing." If it were anyone other than Jerry S. touting the wolves, I would probably animadvert in more strenuous fashion; however, in Jerry's case I have learned that waiting with my objections often turns out to be the best policy--since my gainsayings usually disappear on their own. Still . . . for the time being, number me with the sheep, or better yet the lambs (or better yet, a semi-shepard of myself, at least). . . . I don't know . . . all a person has to rely on in the end is or her own line of development, isn't it? Certainly, the result of my own is the reverse of what has been suggested: It seems like much more the case that I started out as a wolf and turned into a-- Well, who knows? All I can say is that I have now become far too gentle to be a proper wolf any more. If I do inflict pain, the awareness of the fact that I have done so usually makes me suffer more than my victim. Indeed, in the case of those closest to me, there is no question that I would rather have the particular pain they are subjected to myself rather than to watch them in pain. Am I completely off-track? Were Gautama, Ramakrishna, Saint Francis, etc. secretly living according to some "wolf-ideal" that they never mentioned? No, by my lights, a person who hurts others mindlessly--or worse, just for the "fun" of it--may be highly valuable as a "unpleasant life-lesson" for someone else's spiritual evolution; however, the hurtful person himself or or herself may still be at the starter's blocks in regard to his or her own development. --Unless he or she is doing it mindfully and with concern for another person's psychogenetic development, of course. . . . Even here, however, there seems to be a certain presumptuousness, the ins-and-outs of which I have not yet resolved for myself. I have experimented with this many times on this list, and I suppose I will continue to do so, but at this point I can say neither that it is proper, nor that it yields good results. These experiments are innocuous enough, I suppose: usually they are just the result of my perception (right or wrong) that someone may be using certain ideas or knowledge merely as the "raw material" for a desire-mental or mental "ego-formation" ("I REALLY AM the mental-stuff I am drawn to" / I REALLY AM my dispassionate mentation"). My methodology is just to nit-pick point-by-point so that they no longer get so much egoic pleasure or unbridled superordination from their chosen delusion. My hope is that they will sooner or later "up-level" to the next strata of egoic mistake. This might turn out to be a bad thing to do, and naturally it is predicated on the completely unsupported assumption that for some reason I think I have the "Vantage of Perspective" on the other person's psychogenetic condition. Well, bad or good, I cannot help noticing that this type of "presumptuous helping" seems to have little in common with other potentially "helping methodologies" which might possibly be in use on this list. For one thing, if I lose point after point with Eldon, it does not cross my mind to set matters right by telling him that he is the ugliest theosophist in history. By the standard of ~ventrum omnipotentum~, the "all-powerful vocal chord," I suppose I could claim some sort of "victory" in this way; however, would the name-calling really make Eldon more likely to keep the Once-Removed-Vantage on his future mental egoic-constructs of the same nature, or would he merely be all the more resolute in his ego-tainted ideas because an obvious ***hole espouses the opposing view? Nevertheless, my continuing hope, naturally, is that we have no ***holes on this list and that everyone, no matter how wolfishly abrasive, does what he or she does with high purpose and helpful intent. I am aware that I could be wrong in this as well, though: it might just be a foolish sheep-prayer from someone who can still bleat but who has lost the knack for howling. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 2 23:45:33 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:45:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <9CARLIAdeisxEw70@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Discussions In-Reply-To: <960602223821_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960602223821_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes > For us all to pretend to be harmonious and happy >little theosophists would be play false, and even Joe Sixpack >would catch on in no time. We wolves prefer honesty. Lets >us theosophists come together and learn how we can all >agree with one another before we pull in a whole bunch of >newbies who will look to us for theosophical role modeling. GULP! Now this is a *real* challenge which goes to the heart of every controversy we have had or will have on the list (or anywhere else). I doubt that we can ever all agree with each other, but we *could* - given the willingness to do so, and trying very hard to act on it - agree to accept each others' differences as (to quote the TI statement) members of a universal human family, and try to do so without name-calling, sarcasm or "put-downs." 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 Sun Jun 2 23:57:15 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:57:15 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant In-Reply-To: <960602223822_76400.1474_HHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Doss: > >This reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Just like > >each blind man tried to feel one part of the elephant and tried to > >generalize what the whole elephant looks like, we have Theosophy that we > >all try to attempt to describe or define or understand. > > > >Buddha, faced a somewhat similar situation dealing with various concepts > >that he tried to discuss. He stated that since there will always be > >difference in opinion on the unseen, it is easier to discuss those things > >which are seen. > > The real difference between Buddhism and Theosophy, Doss, > is that Theosophy attempts to define reality, while Buddhism provides > techniques and leaves reality itself undefined in words. Theosophy > is theoretical, while Buddhism is practical. This is exactly why Carl > Jung called Theosophy "lazy thinking" -- because theosophists who > study the literature over a long period of time become convinced > (falsely) that they know everything. The idea that one can understand ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Agreed, No one can know everything. ....ramadoss > life, and what life is all about, from reading books, is indeed lazy thinking. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 00:00:36 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:00:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The Earl Grey Council In-Reply-To: <960602191858_405788620@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I will be looking forward to you and others on alt.theosophy. ..doss From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 00:27:32 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:27:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant In-Reply-To: <960602223822_76400.1474_HHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Doss: > >This reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Just like > >each blind man tried to feel one part of the elephant and tried to > >generalize what the whole elephant looks like, we have Theosophy that we > >all try to attempt to describe or define or understand. > > > >Buddha, faced a somewhat similar situation dealing with various concepts > >that he tried to discuss. He stated that since there will always be > >difference in opinion on the unseen, it is easier to discuss those things > >which are seen. > > The real difference between Buddhism and Theosophy, Doss, > is that Theosophy attempts to define reality, while Buddhism provides > techniques and leaves reality itself undefined in words. Theosophy > is theoretical, while Buddhism is practical. This is exactly why Carl I have been trying to make Theosophy practical in the sense that I try to apply the ideal of Universal Brotherhood to help any man(woman) or any other entity that I can help. So I feel there is a practical side to Theosophy. Again I was trying to highlight the point that there is going to be a variety of ideas, opinions, internal facts we have to deal with as the full reality is beyond all words. ....doss > Jung called Theosophy "lazy thinking" -- because theosophists who > study the literature over a long period of time become convinced > (falsely) that they know everything. The idea that one can understand > life, and what life is all about, from reading books, is indeed lazy thinking. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 2 23:30:38 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:30:38 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Leadbeater In-Reply-To: <199606022016.WAA15870@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199606022016.WAA15870@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser writes >Martin comments: what is the purpose of discussing Leadbeater's flaws? >It distracts the attention of many on this list from the more important >things we should be discussing (IMO). The point is simple: He made many mistakes (viz., "Life on Mars") and told lies about himself. If such a well-known writer is shown to be in error in one thing, then his writing on other things needs, perhaps, more careful examination than might be the case for another writer. When we also know that he told lies (as with regard to his age) we ask ourselves "Why? Is this person trustworthy? If he lies to us in one matter, may he not have lied to us in others?" These questions do not dismiss all his work as worthless, however, but we older students are generally aware of the great veneration in which this man was held. In my own "Bishops Irregular" [Bain, Bristol, 1985] I published details concerning his consecration as a Liberal Catholic Bishop which included the information uncovered by Gregory Tillet. As no one has produced any evidence to suggest that *Tillet* lied, I presumed (and still do) that his research was reliable, especially in the lie about his age - the original birth certificate was published. I donated a copy of the book to my own local Lodge. Shock Horror! It disappeared from the shelf within the week. Yet we state, "There is no Religion Higher than Truth." Part of the second object, surely? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 22:37:23 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 18:37:23 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606030039.AA01892@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Representing the Masters Below is an example of how the masters are misrepresented through this list. This is a public list and new members drop in at any time. They will see what old experienced list members express as indicative of what theosophy (and the Brotherhood) is about. Bjorn At 07:22 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I know all about the dutch. Dutch girls are also very good in bed and they >love my whip collection. >There was this real cute one who used to work at the Art Institute... >Happy Marquis de Sade's birthday. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > > roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 2 22:37:25 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 18:37:25 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606030039.AB01892@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: chela? What Alexis and Chuck think and say about me I do not care about. But I feel I should clarify this "chela-business" so other list members do not get the wrong idea about me. When I said that I am a chela of the masters I was using the word meaning "devoted student and disciple". After the violent reactions from A&C I have come to realize that the word may be used in a different meaning by some (many?) theosophists. My life is devoted to the spiritual path and service under the masters, this is true, but by that I do not claim any "rank" or special spiritual attainment etc. I am assuming that many (most?) serious students of theosophy share this path; the desire to advance spiritually and to serve mankind under the masters. If I have used the word "chela" inappropriately, I sincerely apologize. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From jem@vnet.net Mon Jun 3 00:53:41 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:53:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199606030053.UAA14716@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: I-Ching: Primal Correlates?? I was looking at the Shambhalla Pocket Classic edition of the I-Ching (trans. Thomas Cleary) and have been unable to find any other references to what he refers to as the "Primal Correlate" to a given Hexagram. He mentions that they are useful in readings, but does not give any methodology for construction. I was wondering if anyone had run into them before?? e.g. (numbers are the usual I-Ching ordering of hexagrams; so 1 is Creative, and 2 is the Receptive, etc.) (relationship is reflexive) 1 2 3 20 4 19 5 57 6 58 7 13 8 27 9 32 10 46 (etc.) thanks for any insight. I have not found this concept in the usual sources (Wilhelms etc.) or Wings. peace - john e. mead ----------------------------------------------------------- John E. Mead jem@vnet.net Theos-L etc. list-owner Member of Theosophical Society in America Member of Theosophy International [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness] ----------------------------------------------------------- From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 01:02:33 1996 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:02:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: chela? In-Reply-To: <9606030039.AB01892@alpinet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote: > If I have used the word "chela" inappropriately, I sincerely apologize. > > Bjorn Hi, you are correct in your response. For most "chela" in Theosophical context has certain connotation. That is how I understood it. Now that you have explained, the issue should be laid to rest satisfactorialy. ...Ramadoss From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Jun 3 00:29:38 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 20:29:38 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606030134.VAA16918@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: "Isis Unveiled" Dear Kym, Theosophists believe in very many reincarnations. The time between reincarnations varies, depending. For instance, we believe that a young soldier killed in a war may reincarnate again very quickly, whereas some person who has led a very useful & saintly life, might get a long rest inbetween earth lives. There are a number of Theosophical books about reincarnation. The newest one, written a few years ago, is by John Algeo. I can't find it in my book case just now, but the title is something like "Reincarnation Explored". He also made it into a video. If you're a member at Wheaton, you can borrow this stuff from the Library. The Theosphical Publishing House has it for sale. Hope that answers your question. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Jun 3 01:25:48 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 21:25:48 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606030231.WAA18609@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Doss, Re: courtesy Thanks, Doss for your support. I'm getting awfully tired of this. Who wants to sit & argue all the time. I'd rather learn/teach Theosophy. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Jun 3 01:44:10 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 21:44:10 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606030249.WAA27020@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Attention Liesel & Alexis Dear Daniel, The only time I get nasty is in response to someone else getting very nasty, & hitting below the belt. ALexis did that & I responded in kind. Since I didn't start it, I'm not going to apologize either. But as far as I'm concerned we might better just stop the whole thing, before the whole list breaks apart. I haven't read what Alexis wrote for the past month or so, & I understand that it just kept on being insulting. I've read several of his messages in the last few days, but now I'm going to stop again. If I answer, it'll just get us in deeper. If he wants to talk about how awful I and my friends are, I'm not going to be aware of it, because I'll again be skipping over what he writes. I don't think it's possible to get a reasonable exchange going re CWL, so that may as well not be tried. Other than that, I'm open to any reasonable suggestions about any theosophical topics. But they've got to make some sort of sense. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 00:03:15 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 01:03:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Ruminations In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960602072306.006e8248@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960602072306.006e8248@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>"Prove?" Proving *any* esoteric truth is nigh impossible. We either >>experience it or we don't. Having experienced it, we then interpret the >>experience. Then we are quite likely to fight about the interpretation! > >But do we not tend to have experiences that are to some degree "scripted" >and the result of the mis en scene of our pre-dispositions and beliefs? Sure, that's part of the problem as well! :-) 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 Jun 3 04:03:51 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:03:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603000351_405948573@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis My heavens, Daniel as peacemaker. This calls for a drink! Let's hope it works. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 04:04:38 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:04:38 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603000438_405949084@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions Eldon, I wasn't kidding when I wrote it. I have been accused of a lot of things in my life but being compared to the Unabomber was just too much. I thought it was a joke, at first, sort of like the clowning about between me and JRC, but no, the man is serious. And on top of it he claims to have a direct line to the Masters! I make a poor punching bag, but as I have now blasted him thoroughly and put him on my filter list, I will probably calm down and get back to debating with you the relative merits of our differing views. As far as the newgroup goes, well they can get pretty wild and you know what I can be like. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 04:04:45 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:04:45 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603000442_405949143@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples Jerry, Living will take them away from literal interpretation. There is no teacher like experience and as a pentecostal friend of mine once said many years ago, "If doctrine conflicts with experience, go with experience." Now Eldon is one of the lucky ones. Obviously he managed to build up such terrible Karma that the Lords of Karma decided to give him a lifetime off to recover before blasting him again. He has an idyllic life, a gorgeous wife and I'm sure delightful children, things life has never given me and I find it hard not to be jealous at times. So he can afford to be a sheep. We wolves have it a little harder, but maybe next time we will get some rest and can be sheep for a while. My guess it the Joe Sixpacks will be a mixture of sheep and wolves depending on what life had dealt them when they come to us. Eldon will be there to encourage the sheep and give them lots of stuff to read and hopefully they will not be disturbed by the snoring of the wolves when they put us to sleep regurgitating it. We will get the wolves and turn them loose on the sheep. It all works out in the end. Congratulations on finally getting the Ph.D. That means there's still hope for me. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 02:33:15 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 22:33:15 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606030435.AA03862@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Agni Yoga >To: roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net >Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:13:10 +0300 >From: Kay Ziatz >Reply-To: Kay Ziatz >Subject: Agni Yoga > > Hello Bjorn! Bjorn wrote re Agni yoga: >r>I have read some of it in English. It is hard to get into it, since much >of >r>it is answers to questions, and the questions are not included. But I am >r>convinced that El Morya has written (or dictated) the answers. > > I've read almost all books of Agni-Yoga but haven't seen such "answers". >Probably you've read letters of E.I.Roerich (?) > Most of these books do not have chapters, etc. They consist of >many paragraphs with a number assigned to each of them (like in Bible). >I agree, "it is hard to get into it", as you said, but because it isn't >like a Secret Doctrine or Bailey books, maybe it should be accepted more >emotionally than intellectually. It may be good for people of mystical >nature but not for me. > For instance, I'll try to translate some: > >1. You may be asked - can a time of Maytreya consist an epoque? >Say - if a cross campaigns gave entire epoque, then Maytreya >epoque is 1000 times more important. It must be passed with such a >consciousness. > >2. People don't understand, what God and Bodhisattva mean. Like blind >ones ask - what a light like is? But people even haven't words for >decribing qualities of light, though they see it everyday. People so >much afraid of unusual, that have mixed borders of light with a darkness. >Most easier for them is suppose that God's palace is located on a big- >gest star. Otherwise their god will leave without residence. Phenomenon >of incommensurableness makes them to minorize existing. > >3. You wonder often, why I don't give an answer to question? > You must know that arrows of thought often touch object of answer. >Suppose a wanderer who crosses an abyss over a rope. Will it be wise >to yell him? Yell can destroy his balance. Because of that you should >not mention names without instant need. Skill of using personal names is >necessary. Skill of telling a name must be like a hammer knock in a space. > > (Signs of Agni-Yoga, 1929). > >And so on. Each book consists of approx. 600 paragraphs like these. >It should be noted that original text is shorter than my translation. >It's laconic. Perhaps you've seen an original text of Bhagavad-Gita >and an English translation which is much longer. Russian grammar >reminds Sanskrit. For instanse, "you might be asked" in first pa- >ragraph replaces one word "ask" in plural and "future time". So >adequate English traslation maybe impossible. Spanish or Portuguese >translation should look better, I hope. > > W/best regards, Kay Ziatz (real name: Konstantin Zaitzev) > >P.S. Please forward this letter to theos-l > I can only evenaually post messages there. > > >--- SuperSlicer > * Origin: Nonsense (Fidonet 2:5020/360.4) roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 02:33:20 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 22:33:20 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606030435.AC03862@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 07:22 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > damnably stupid as to think that a fraud like Ballard >could say anyone is a chela is in no position to judge anyone else. >Fortunately you are going on my filter list and I will no longer have to put >up with your fascist garbage. This time it is "damnable stupid". And why? Because I have somewhat different beliefs than Chuck. Because of these my beliefs he calls me "damnable stupid". Why this person is participating in a Theosophical discussion forum is beyond me. Apparantly it is not healthy for him either, complaining as he does of getting high blood pressure. Then, because I think it is a good idea to have a mechanism to reduce personal name calling etc on this list, he calls my opinions "fascist garbage". Well, Chuck, your knowledge of Ballard and the I Am movement isn't even superficial. Do you not know how Blavatsky was constantly maligned and accused of being the fraud of the century etc? Can't you see that this is likely to happen again and again until the world has changed to a considerably higher state of consciousness? I have some famliarity with the personality and character of Mr Ballard, and would say that compared with HPB, his were impeccable. And yet, HPB worked for the Masters with all her faults. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 02:33:23 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 22:33:23 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606030435.AD03862@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 07:24 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >I have sent my last message to this moron. > Anyone who is damned fool enough to think he is a chela because that crook Ballard told him (no doubt after being paid for the initiation, that was the usual procedure I'm told) is not worth the bandwidth to argue with. So now, "moron" it is. And, of course, "damned fool" (almost the same thing, right?). Chuck, did you know that Ballard died 1939? How old do you think I Am? Where did you get your "information" about Ballard from???? In my case I know numerous people who have belonged to his movement and left. They do not have any reason to protect him since they don't belong to his organization, and may even not like the way it is being run. But never have they have any complaints even remotely similar to what you are coming up with. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 05:08:23 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 22:08:23 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603050823.006b9a84@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis At 03:32 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 02:07 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Liesel and Alexis, >>In my opinion, both of you need to cool it with each other. If either one >>of you wants to write spiteful things about each other, e-mail each other >>privately. > >If personal vendettas are necessary, private E-mail is the right place for them. > >Please spare the rest of us! > Bjorn: I've already made it clear that there will be absolutely no input vis a vis Liesel from me. I have "filtered" her and so I will have no opportunity to respond to, or read, her messages. And I will resolutely ignore such messages from her as I see on other people's messages. Now is it not time for you to drop your little "crusade"? alexis >>> >>> >> >> >> > From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 05:50:28 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 22:50:28 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603055028.006c9148@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? At 04:17 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >First a snippet out of a conversation between Chuck and Alexis: > >Alexis>You know that Martin will in all likelihood take every word you > just said totally seriously. > >Martin comments: no, not really. I know Chuck a little bit better >than that (at least I think I do :)) > >Alexis> He's Dutch (I think) [yes] and they are as entirely literal as >any German or Slav. First lat me apologize for inadvertently getting your name wrong, I really thought it was Euler. I have no idea where I got the idea, but it was firmly ensconced in my head. Now, Chuck and most of the folks on this list are aware that I am primarily German-Russian in my genetics, and it is a long time joke between alan, Chuck, and I about my literalness. > >Martin comments: a totally sweeping generalization (to imitate >your style :)). Actually my country is oriented very much towards >the USA. The folks here are as different from each other as in any >country. The main flaw here is the imitation of American soap opera's. >We shouldn't do that. The Americans have invented that and nobody >can do that kind of stuff better than ye yankies :) Martin: I used to live in Amsterdam and had a Dutch lover (actually two of them), I know a lot about your country and have long considered retiring there. I love the place so please don't think I was being negative or derogatory in any way. > > > > >Martin comments: of course and nobody (I hope) is doing that. A.D.: Thank you and I can see that you're not. > > > >Martin comments: I'm not judging you at all - this seems to be a hangup >of you. If you read my posts more carefully, you will see that I'm concerned >what's going on on this list. And I'm not putting all the fault on your >shoulders-see my posting Re: Donna; Re: Chuck & Alexis. A.D.: It has never been a "hang up of mine" but in the last weeks I have been the object of such extreme negativity, and such streams of constant invective that I have become not simply "testy" but very over sensitive. > > >ALexis>I submit that it is my >perception that the greatest motivation behind your judgemental attitude >towards me derives from the entirely unorthodox approach I have to what >Eldon and Daniel call the "Core Doctrines" of Theosophy, and that I believe >is the ONLY thing that drives you. A.D.: I have received, over the last several months so much "flak" for precisely that reason that I am afraid that I have come to almost expect it. Most likely you don't deserve to be the target for other peoples problems with me, and I really didn't mean to insult you in any way. > > >Martin comments: actually you're wrong in your perception. My greatest >drive is a search for truth in these matters. Why do you think I' m discussing >your point of view with you at length? Think about that! A.D.: Good point and well taken! But I will have to reserve judgement regarding your attitude to my un orthodoxy. > > > Alexis>If you would go through my postings since >I joined the board you would find that, with the exception of my "games" >with Chuck Cosimano, the majority of my messages have been thoughtful, >original, and entirely unorthodox. > >Martin comments> well, when I have the opportunity I will check out >the archives of John Mead. Please do. > > >Alexis> But I also submit that the actual content >of my messages on this board are of really little interest to you. > > >Martin comments: well, well. I submit that projecting *your ideas * >about the motives of others into these others is one of your flaws >(as it probably is with all of us) :) That remark of mine, when viewed in coolness, was uncalled for. I retract it an apologize for it. > > > >>Indeed. But that's not the issue here (except for the Leadbeater case). > >Alexis>Please explain the sentence above. I don't wish to misunderstand you. > > >Martin comments: I wrote that sentence because I suspect that factual >information on Leadbeater is not appreciated by many on this forum >(and that this information triggers many angry responses). Now what you say is entirely true. I have great difficulty in comprehending how any one can be wildly antagonized by facts. Facts are facts, they have nothing to do with opinions. In Leadbeater's case the things I have been saying are based upon documented evidence, not opinions or rumors, but strongly documented empirical evidence. The aren't at all arguable. These things are a matter not of Theosophical History but public record. Believe me there are far worse things alleged about Leadbeater than what I've been talking about. So then Martin, how does one deal with the irrational? You know, and I know, that there are people in this world who claim the holocaust never happened, but it did, and reasonable people are not intimidated into silence by the....what shall we call it?....."The irrational will to disbelieve" of people who refuse to accept facts? > > >Martin (prev)>The issue is, or rather has become: personal attacks on each > other. > >Alexis> In the first place, if you had been on this list long enough to >follow the >whole situation, you would find that I am not entirely at fault. I have been >accused of things that in my own estimation, I did not do. > > >Martin comments> That's quite possible (would have to check that). > > >Alexis> The problem with >Liesel Deutsch originated when she violently reacted to my total disapproval >of Charles Webster Leadbeater, my mistake was, and I freely admit it, to let >my Russian temper get the best of me and replied in kind. When something I >say is true, and is backed up by vast amounts of printed evidence, I do not >accept being told that I cannot discuss the subject. > > >Martin comments: I regard Liesel as a very friendly lady and a 'cyber-friend' >but I know she won't tolerate strong disapprovals of Charles Leadbeater. >It is understandable: loyalty to one's teacher is a strong thing , yet >not always wise if carried to the extreme. I mean, you can be loyal to >someone and yet disapprove of some of his/her actions. >That distinction is something many people find very hard to swallow. >In other words: you can condemn some act of a person, >but, by doing so, you don't condemn the whole of the person, the whole >of his/her character. I take it that you condemned many of his acts and >views, but not the person Leadbeater? > A.D.: Martin I have not "condemned" anything I have said I object to his actions as a proven Child Molester. What I mainly object to there is the fact that the man used his position of authority to misuse that authority, in a sexual way, with young children over whom he had been given authority. I also believe that many of his actions regarding his teaching of Theosophy have hurt the society. The Krishnamurti debacle being the most hideously obvious. It is also my strong belief that the theosophical movement would be far healthier than it is today had it not been for his writings, teachings, and actions. I can hardly condemn the man himself, he died the year before I was born. May I suggest that you read" "The Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett? It will give you a clearer idea of why I feel the way I do. >Alexis> P.S. As to my "Russian Temper" it's actually the "Dolgorukii Family Temper"...HPB was infamous for her angers, rages, insulting or intemperate remarks, and her extreme sensitivity. And she was just one eighth Dolgorukii! I'm the senior male member of the family! It really isn't "O.K." for either of us, but it's the way we were made and people who value us have to try to understand that there's another side to our character. From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 06:13:38 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 23:13:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603061338.006c20d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis Martin: Thank you for your many kindnesses to me in this posting. I appreciate it more than you can know. By the way, Alan Bain, when printing the Pamphlet "Ruminations on the Subject of Theosophy" (in the first edition) misspelled the bejesus out of Dolgorukii (which is easy to do). So I asked him politely to change it, and laughed about it with him. Now, why do I need to be able to discuss Bishop Leadbeater? Well it's clearly not out of purient interest, or a desire to "spread gossip". Firstly, in this case, it's public record and not gossip. But, as you already know, my perceptions and conceptions vis a vis the theosophical movement, and the philosophy it contains, absolutely requires that I refute those aspects of the philosophy and doctrine with which I disagree. Now, it is my perception that Bishop Leadbeater, and Mrs. Besant are very much the source and fountain of everything with which I disagree strongly. Therefore, if I am prevented from discussing the flaws I see inherent in their input, I am effectively silenced. Both the Bishop and Annie Besant are long passed away, but their influence on the society, which I view as pernicious, has not. I cannot explain why I consider that influence to be pernicious if I cannot discuss the source of the influences. Is that not so? It is also, I think, impossible to have any kind of rational discussion when one party is basing their discussion of history and the public record and the other party is basing the discussion on the Akashic Records as "read" by a friend. Is this not so? Apropos, it might be good were I to make my views on Dora van Gelder-Kunz clear. I have met Dora, and she is a funny, nice, and interesting person. As to her psychic qualities, I have been in the "psychic community" for over thirty years now, and I have met an enormous number of psychics. I have met many psychics I feel are not as talented as Dora, and I have met some who I believe to be far more able and talented than Dora. This is not to devalue her, but it is also not hagiography. I have attended a seminar and demonstration on healing that she gave, and I find her a competent healer, but no more. That by the way is not a disparagement, there are very few competent healers. But as to the connection between the van Gelder family and Bishop Leadbeater, I believe that the closeness creates a "conflict of interest" and makes any van Gelder unable to accurately and fairly judge the Bishop. He was like family to them, and most courts wisely recuse family from testifying. Now I hope this gives you a better idea where I am coming from. alexis From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 04:17:38 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:17:38 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606030619.AA04465@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis Alexis wrote: >Bjorn: > >I've already made it clear that there will be absolutely no input vis a vis >Liesel from me. I have "filtered" her and so I will have no opportunity to >respond to, or read, her messages. And I will resolutely ignore such >messages from her as I see on other people's messages. This sounds like an interesting excercise in self control! Now is it not time >for you to drop your little "crusade"? Certainly. I am looking forward to constructive exchanges, agreeing or disagreeing. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 06:36:53 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 23:36:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603063653.006cc3e0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! There's a very old Zen saying that goes: "Those who know...don't say...those who say...don't know". As to your "meeting the Master Jesus"..that which cannot be empirically proven shouldn't be "testified to". The most important thing that cannot be empirically proven is the concept that Jesus was ever a real and living person. If that is so, it would then be hard to encounter "his" spirit, would it not? Now as to intelligence tests? Most academics in the field of education consider them to be a very poor indicator of intelligence at all. Secondly tests given in the kind of circumstances you report are as easily manipulated in any chosen direction as political polls and are therefore about equally valid. My strong disapproval of Elisabeth Clair Prophet arises from my estimation that the woman is entirely fraudulent. The same disapproval also arises from a lot of reading of her printed words and they are totally unoriginal and un valid. My disapproval of her "disciples" arises from the fact that I find it inconceivable that anyone could fall for her words. In other words Bjorn, I don't "buy" your arguments. I've been observing Elisabeth Prophet (and the entire "new Age" Metaphysical Community) for some twenty years now and all I can say is that incredible banalities like "EL Morya" and "Cosmic Secret agent K-17 (or was it K-27?) have provided me with countless hour of amusement, the utter superficiality and banality of her writing leaves me totally aghast and appalled that anyone could "fall for it". You have been entirely "up front" and honest about your point of view, I could do no other than be equally frank and honest in my response. I have no animosity toward you are any of the people in the "I Am Movement" or the "Church Universal and Triumphant" but i do have a good deal of pity. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 06:51:46 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 23:51:46 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603065146.006c144c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophy for Joe Sixpack and Theosophy for Disciples At 06:45 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: > I just finished my dissertation, and at long last, have my PhD. >Among other goodies, this will doubtless sell several more copies of >my books (I am retired and need the money folks) all by itself. > The fact that magic is also a two-edged sword is exactly >why I started writing my books, Chuck. I watched too many people >burning their fingers through ignorance. Alexis d.: Jerry, my warmest congratulations to Dr.Schueler! I've been following (lurking- us wolves are good at that) your sever al postings and I want to say that they are all wise and very well stated. > There may be a few Joe Sixpacks who stay with Theosophy, >but I still don't think that the membership will ever be up there where >it was before the infamous K incident. I hope that I am wrong. Alexis d.: Jerry, you are right as usual. They will not come to theosophy as it exists today, so the question of their "staying" is moot. > When I came into Theosophy, I too tried to take the >literature literally, and very seriously. Alexis d.: Has there ever been a Theosophist who didn't? I know I did. But by that time, I had already been initiated into Knuckling Yoga, and had a few >mystical experiences to hand, so I was able to sift a lot of >chaff from wheat right off the bat. Thus I was unable to ever >be a real sheep. Maybe a wolfish-sheep, or a sheepish-wolf? > The root problem here is that our worldview has to >address, and assimilate, our experiences. If we have certain >experiences that are simply not covered in the TS literature, >then we must expand our concept of Theosophy to address >that. If we have experiences that conflict with TS literature or >Core Teachings, then our worldview must also address >that--because we must always tweak our worldview to account >for our experiences. The only alternative is to ignore those >experiences and such repression always leads to pathological >conditions downstream. > I have been successful with this for the most part, >by employing the terms exoteric and esoteric to ideas or >teachings. Now I know that both you and Alexis don't care for >those terms, but they really have been a big help to me. Karma >and reincarnation, for example, as taught by Judge and G de P >are very acceptable to me as long as I consider them to be >exoteric teachings. In other words, the way they are taught in >the TS literature is simply not the way I experience or >intuitively see them. So, I call my own view esoteric, and thus >can assimilated both the literature and my experiences into my >worldview very nicely. Otherwise, I probably would have left >Theosophy a long time ago. Eldon is right when he says >that the words of the Core Teachings point to a body of esoteric >(wordless) teachings that have to be experienced. > So, after we bring in a bizzillion Joe Sixpacks and >their families, how do we get them away from a literal interpretation? > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > Jerry: We keep them away from a "literal interpretation of the literature", by simply keeping them away from the literature until they have been warned that it is entirely exoteric (to use your definition which is a good one) and symbolic and not to be understood literally. It is also imperative to provide literature that is not so entirely misleading. Which is the motivation for my crusade" against Leadbeater and the others who, I feel, a primarily responsible for the misleading nature of the literature, and also, in Leadbeater's case, for the Krishnamurti debacle. How would Krishnamurti have turned out had his entire childhood not been blighted? alexis > From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 06:53:21 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 23:53:21 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603065321.006c22a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Moderating" lists etc. At 07:10 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >hi - > >just a quick note to reaffirm that I do not support moderating >this list. > >my experience has been that trying to control Theosophists is >ultimately "un-theosophical". > >peace - > >john e. mead >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >John E. Mead jem@vnet.net >Theos-L etc. list-owner >Member of Theosophy International >[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Hurrah...good for you John! My experience has been that trying to control Theosophists is impossible! alexis From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Jun 3 06:54:51 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:54:51 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: The Universal Family of Humanity Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII [A long one folks (-:)] It has, for some time now, been my belief that the concept of the formation of the nucleus of a universal family of humanity is the very core of modern Theosophy, the most profound idea within the Theosophical movement, the movement's "true north" ... that the compass of every theosophical sect ought to point towards to maintain its stability, its focus, and *its relationship to the foundational purpose of its existence*. Even further, I believe that the *reason* modern Theosophy appears to be such a mess, has splintered into a hundred different factions, is irrelevant to and largely ignored by the humanity it was begun to serve, and has withdrawn into itself as a turtle into its shell, is because its animating idea - *The Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of Humanity* has been buried and forgotten ... replaced by small sects of people taking slices of the current, little tributaries, and attempting to make of them the whole of Theosophy; by people unable to resist the terrible selfishness present in the *personal* desire to be admitted into a "Mystery School" (a failing the Masters fought - unsuccessfully - from the very beginning of the society); by people caught in the snare of secret-chasing, unknowingly chained by the deep delights of wrestling with ornate philosophy and bound to the addictive pleasures of "insight" apparently gained therefrom. The First Object (I'll be so bold as to assert (-:) is much more than simply the statement of a nice sentiment, more than something to pay lip service to, to keep around like a pet goldfish ... in the room but usually ignored ... no, it is the tip of an idea so immense, so earth-shattering, so *kinetic* that if modern Theosophy were *truly* commit to it as an *Object*, that is, as a *goal* - the theosophical current would virtually instantaneously spring back to life. We were, I believe, as Theosophists, handed an *opportunity* to accomplish a remarkable task on behalf of the spiritual kingdom on this planet. The *gift* we were given was the *chance to serve on a global scale* ... and all the "teachings", the esoterica, were *not* given for our *personal benefit*, and we certainly do not have some sort of charge to "keep them alive" (how ridiculous - Those Who Keep Them can release them to whom they want, in any form they desire, at any time they wish) - the "occult" knowledge is but little scraps of an impossibly huge body of knowledge, scraps *intended to serve the accomplishment of the Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of Humanity*. The purported "next religion" about which there is so much argument? Look in the First Object and *it is there* ... and not only that, but the "keys" to reading the theosophical esoterica are *also* buried in it. I understand these are bold claims ... and in fact they do not fit into *any* of the current theosophical sects, but bear with me (-:) - I'll try to support them ... to unpack what (IMO) are the first few layers of the remarkable idea/mission embedded in the First Object. No one may accept the totality of the premise ... but at least a discussion of the First Object - an idea the Adepts clearly and continually stated to be of prime importance to them - will be worth a bit of discussion. And curiously enough (IMO), of all the intense discussions I've seen in Theosophy over the years, discussion of the minutia of karma, of reincarnation, of the globes and races and rounds, of occult theory and occult practice in all its nuances, I've seen barely even an ounce of attention, a moment of intellectual energy, expended on understanding what the Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of Humanity might mean. Its depths have *never* been explored, its door never even opened - yet this was the idea the Adepts held to be the one thing that *could not vary* regardless of what Sinnet, Hume, or even HPB wanted to do with Theosophy. And I suppose the best way to start would be to frame, in succinct a fashion as possible, what I believe to be the *foundational vibration of the theosophical current, inspired by Adepts and initiated by HPB*: The Adepts, understanding with foresight the century we are now in the midst of, and grasping the stunning burst of intellectual development - with all its power and its delusions - that was immanent, and understanding as well that the chief characteristic of the intellect is the *differentiating function* (i.e., that it is the "great slayer" of the (unified) "real", the *source* of the "heresy of separateness"), understanding that it was a *required stage of evolution*, but that it harbored tremendous dangers, and desirous of aiding in that evolution by trying to mitigate the great pain inherent in the delusions of the intellect, sought then a means of *immunizing* our race against the worst of the viral infections the spirit of differentiation (that is the core of the intellect) had almost inevitably to cause. The source of the *danger* exists in the very core of the intellect - whose first and most fundamental sentiment is "I, not I". It *seeks* to differentiate, to pull apart what is whole, to *magnify* differences, to see how many pieces compose the atom, how many different hierarchies can be named as composing the natural world, how many categories it can create to demonstrate how *different* humans are from one another. (Want to see this in action? *Every* race, every philosophy (*including Theosophy!), and every religion has produced a "ranking system" in which its members are the *highest*, and all others descend "downward" from the defined peak). Its development, for aeons possessed by but a few every generation, was on the verge of becoming widely diffused. Its powers are unprecedented - it can cure diseases, produce food, clothing and shelter for everyone on earth, but its downside is virulent. And the anti-virus, the immunizing agent, had to (of necessity) be of the nature of the virus - i.e., had to be *an idea* ... an idea *as basic and powerful as the predilection to say "I, not-I", but *diametrically opposed*. "To form a nucleus of a universal family of humanity, *without distinction* of race, creed, sex, caste or color." This, this remarkable idea, *is* the "anti-virus". In a world now completely deluged under the effects of "Us *vs.* Them", it was to be a powerful, focussed and deliberate articulation of the sentiment "Us *and* Them". But the means of introducing it could not be simply to state it - various forms of it had been stated for *millennia* with little effect. This merely had the effect of a doctor *telling* a patient they were going to get some medicine. To actually *inject it* into the body of humanity, it would require *a group of humans ... not Adepts, *humans*, to *actualize* the idea within the confines of the human civilization*. At least some minority of members of *our kingdom* had to have the courage, the perseverance, the tremendous creativity required to *begin demonstrating what the human kingdom as a whole would look like *after* it had completed the development of the mind* ... when it will begin to *resolve and unify instead of differentiate*. That is, the "anti-virus", from another perspective, is the *idea that will govern us in the future*: That we *are* a "universal family of humanity" - and we, we as *Theosophists*, were handed the golden opportunity to *form its nucleus* ... to be the *first iteration*, the *seed*. And yet, the founders (other than HPB) almost to the person failed to grasp this - either the idea or the opportunity. The TS itself fell prey almost immediately to the virus itself. But the idea itself is so powerful that it *remains* the animating agent behind whatever life is left in the Theosophical current. And not only that, but precisely those things that are complained about continuously in theosophy (and certainly on this list) are those things that constitute the actual living work of the First Object. (To explain this will take a bit of an articulation of the first layer of the Object (-:): The biggest initial problem is that the First Object is easy to read, and everyone thinks almost immediately that they understand it - but look even a bit more closely (with even half the effort that "karma" is looked at in TS circles (-:) - and suddenly it appears positively immense in its ramifications. To accomplish it, and accomplish it *genuinely*, even upon first glance indicates some very interesting (and perhaps even counterintuitive) realizations ... It has virtually *nothing* to do with "being nice". Notions like politeness, "reasoned discourse", "manners", "insults", etc., etc. vary by culture, by race, by personal upbringing, the exigencies of fate and fortune, and numerous other factors. If we are talking about a universal family, the first huge idea to be faced (and great courage indeed it takes to face it) is that *there is no "correct" mode or style of discourse*. At *every* layer of personality there *are* differences, and very substantial ones, between people ... and the era we live in, the era of mind, has served to do little other than greatly intensify our perception of those differences. The problem is that for most of history, the large majority of humans have been used to assuming that *their acculturated norms are "the" norms*. And this is the first profound truth embedded in the First Object: To take it as a *goal* means we must assume the responsibility of *continually* striving to function *as spiritual entities* ... that is, at the layers of our own energy systems where personality level differences *are not relevant*. This is important. For much of history, different races and cultures simply did not even come into contact with one another .. and when they did, either warfare resulted in the domination of one over the other, or migration happened and the conflicts ceased because the parties separated - did not remain in relation to one another. Both of these *avoided the fundamental issue*. In our current world, with its population explosion and the global telecommunications net, there *is* no place to go - differences that have existed since the beginning of exoteric recorded history must, for the first time, be *resolved*. The *challenge* of the First Object is to find *the way out*. On this list both "traditional" avenues have been tried. Almost everyone has, at one time or another, attempted to establish a correct "norm" - both for content and mode of communication ... but in this unique forum, no one has been able to dominate. And currently, the other "safety valve" is being tried - a usenet list on one hand, and a completely moderated list on the other. Both have been generated (IMO) as *reactions* to the tremendous tension and *pain* that surrounds the formation of a universal family. While I hope both are successful, my own *personal* hope is that people stay connected to theos-l ... because the actual *work* of the First Object is *happening here*. Almost no one thinks they are making personal attacks, and almost everyone feels as though they are subject to them. *WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?* More to the point (to deeply, if somewhat gratuitously stroke those that have stuck it out (-:) - it means that we have *begun the work* - make no mistake, *look* at the First Object ... race, cultures and personalities are *very* different, and to actually form the nucleus of a universal family means that, perhaps for the first time in our race's history ... a group of people, in whom exist the *entire spectrum of those differences*, instead of resolving through the domination of one perspective over another, or simply fleeing one another and avoiding the issue, have chosen to *stay in relation to one another for the sake of an ideal* ... and virtually everyone that has stayed has been virtually *required* to reach for the spiritual aspects of their being - the only place where *actual* resolution exists. Even further, in the very depth and viciousness of the apparent combat itself is the sign that *genuine* work is being done. There are multiple personality types on this list . types that in the human family as a whole have *never* resolved the differences between them. To be willing to *remain connected*, to try to dominate if one has the desire to dominate, to resist that domination if one feels that desire, to be *fully who we are without any compromise*, and hence face the full pain of the conflict with others in whom very different beliefs and standards exist, ... is to begin the *carve the paths that humanity as a whole may someday follow* ... We are, my brothers and sisters, playing the biggest game on earth, and messin' with the very fabric of human reality here - we are *seeking that road, the hidden perspective, the unknown solution, through which even the greatest differences may be somehow resolved - the two "pressure release valves" - domination or avoidance - that have always been the way resolution has come (neither of which every *truly* produced a resolution) we have forgone. Are their not "Alexis' and Liesels, Chucks and Bjorns, JRCs and Eldons, Daniels and K. Paul Johnsons (etc., etc)" throughout the world? Not only at the individual level, but even at the largest scales ... Muslims and Hindus, Catholics and Protestants, first world and third world, Jews and Iraqis, Chinese and Taiwanese ... the list goes on ad infinitum. Thing is, increasingly *no one* is able any longer to either dominate or avoid. But not one is seeking the means of *genuine* resolution ... nor even knows how to look. To pursue the actualization of the First Object is really the commitment to *discover historically unprecedented patterns of relationship* ... patterns that literally do not yet exist ... but that *when discovered in practice* ARE the patterns humanity is almost desperately (if still virtually unconsciously) seeking right now. And if we succeed in *finding* those patterns, *we will have produced the "anti-virus" that can be replicated ... can be *applied* to some of the oldest and deepest problems facing our race*. Does it make *sense*, even with this little brief exploration of the First Object, that the Adepts elevated the idea of universal family above all others? That they tried, constantly and throughout their contact with the founders, to continue to bring people back to that central idea? [And I must say here that, while everyone on the list has value, I continue to be almost in *awe* of John Mead ... in giving us, in exchange for his own personal hours of volunteer work, this forum as a gift .. and in his continued adamant refusal to moderate the list ... he is making it *possible* to do work that would not be possible anywhere else. Once again John, my deepest and most profound thanks ...] While this has probably gone on too long for now, I couldn't finish without mentioning (IMO) yet another significant point about the First Object. And that is that the "teachings" given out are all - if ya think about it - meant to *support* the work of the First Object? That the Second and Third Objects, the notions of cosmo and anthrogenesis, and the framework for understanding how to reach for more interior states of consciousness are all meant to be used *in the service* of the work of forming the nucleus for a universal family of humanity? That to study them alone and for one's personal development is inherently deeply selfish, to believe that one has, *because one has studied them*, somehow "above" the rest of humanity ... that is, to *use* those teachings as a means of *strengthening the sense of difference rather than understanding them as the means of discovering the road to resolution* ... is to seriously *misuse* those teachings? And this, I believe, is why Theosophy really is in trouble right now - the teachings have been virtually *severed* from the work of universal brotherhood ... they are being presented as things that can be (even should be) learned in and of themselves, rather than as both the larger paradigm and the personal knowledge needed to actualize the formation of the universal family. To anyone that feels like it, might I suggest this "key"? Any particular aspect of the theosophical you happen to be studying right now, try studying and meditating on it *assuming the furtherance of the First Object is the reason that particular knowledge was released by the Adepts* ... that out of all the immensity of the wisdom possessed, particular pieces were deliberately chosen (and others not even mentioned) with a very specific end in mind - *to fit those forming the nucleus of a universal family with what they would need to accomplish the task*. While I cannot say this is the truth, I *can* say that reading theosophical literature *with the First Object foremost in mind* changes every bit of it into *something else*, seems to trigger the intuitive understanding of it at a vastly increased scale, and provides *the* thread that *links* the immense body of literature, and suggests connections between apparently completely unconnected parts. *It functions as a key*. Anyway ... `nuff for now. Start taking your shots (har har har har har har har! Get it?! Tee hee). With Love, -JRC From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 06:59:59 1996 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 23:59:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603065959.006d8418@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? At 07:22 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I know all about the dutch. Dutch girls are also very good in bed and they >love my whip collection. >There was this real cute one who used to work at the Art Institute... >Happy Marquis de Sade's birthday. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Here I go being literal again! Can't fight genetics! Is it really de Sade's Birthday? alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 07:04:36 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:04:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603070436.006dbe5c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: many times great grandpa At 07:23 PM 6/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Why does that not surprise me? > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >"Ten thousand Swedes ran through the weeds >At the battle of Copenhagen. >Ten thousand Swedes ran through the weeds >Running from one Norwegian." > >Chuck: Except for the fact that I am 14 inches shorter than Peter Alexeivitch, there's a famous portrait of him that shows a strong facial resemblance. But then all the Romanov's and Dolgorukiis look alike. Blavatsky was different looking but there was a Dolgorukii duiring Peter alexeivitch's reign,yclept Jacob who looked just like her. Flat Kalmuk face and all. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 07:09:33 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:09:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603070933.006e0748@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl I wish that everyone would find another metaphor for "nasty and mean and viscious"....I share my life with a wolf, and he's the gentlest, kindest, sweetest thing on the planet. I have met hundreds of wolves and none of them are "as advertised" the average Jack Russel terrier can terrify a wolf! alexis the wolf friend From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 07:58:59 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:58:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603075859.006acc80@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis At 12:05 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >My heavens, Daniel as peacemaker. > >This calls for a drink! >Let's hope it works. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: I really believe Daniel was entirely sincere. It will work as far as I am concerned. I am not, and really never have been "at war" with Liesel. But the pagans weren't "at war" with the Christians either, look what good it did them! I will never say another negative thing about Liesel but I will also never be silenced on a subject I consider to be of paramount importance to the future of theosophy. If Theosophy is to have a future, we have to clean up our past, and CWL is an important part of that past. alexis From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 08:06:18 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 01:06:18 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603080618.006d2a18@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The Universal Family of Humanity At 03:02 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > [A long one folks (-:)] > JRC: Far too long for 1:00 A.M.! I've pushed the "save as" button and I'll read it at my leisure tomorrow. I think you've hit on an important subject to discuss and I'' be first in line! But I won't be "taking any shots"....I usually agree in general with what you say. Why don't you post this on alt. theosophy? It's just the kind of discussion that's wanted there. Today was John and my 25th anniversary. alexis (I think I've found a mate for my wolf!) From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 08:11:32 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 01:11:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603081132.006da818@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis At 02:16 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis wrote: > >>Bjorn: >> >>I've already made it clear that there will be absolutely no input vis a vis >>Liesel from me. I have "filtered" her and so I will have no opportunity to >>respond to, or read, her messages. And I will resolutely ignore such >>messages from her as I see on other people's messages. > >This sounds like an interesting excercise in self control! Bjorn: I've Mastered (by love alone) a large male wolf, surely I can Master my own temper! > >Now is it not time >>for you to drop your little "crusade"? > >Certainly. I am looking forward to constructive exchanges, agreeing or >disagreeing. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net I sincerely hope so, mais que sera, sera. By the way I lived in Stockhom for almost two years when I was infinitely younger (the early 1950's) alexis dolgorukii From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 09:40:55 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 04:40:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The Universal Family of Humanity In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII John: One of the most refreshing post I have seen for quite some time. You have hit hit the nail on its head - metaphorically. I am going to keep your post in my archives of important posts. After several years of membership of TS, I am still here only because of the First Object. As more I keep it in the background in my day to day activities, it has given me creative ways to approach problems and issues I deal with so that I can help the individuals I come across. Thanks again for the post. ...Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 11:07:50 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 06:07:50 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960603061007.26cfdd58@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Contributions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS There have been some mention about the contributions of Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. It was during the time of Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater, the membership of the Theosophical Society, Adyar grew enormously until the drop after J Krishnamurti made his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement. If you look at the current statistics of the various organizations in the Theosophical Movement, the membership and the number of countries in which branches are active, TS, Adyar is the largest. All the other Theosophy organizations have membership which are very small and the countries in which they are active are few. (If anyone has statistical information to support or dispute this, I would welcome it). While Olcott established branches far and wide, it is the lectures and books of AB and CWL which introduced Theosophy to most of the members. I am one of those who benefitted by reading the books and lectures of AB and CWL. But for the contributions of AB and CWL, IMHO, TS, Adyar would now have the membership and geographical coverage similar to that of the other TS organizations. As the facts speak for themselves, and each can draw their own conclusions about the contributions of AB and CWL. As one Adept said "Ingratitude is not one of our vices,", let us ponder over what AB and CWL have contributed to Theosophy and TS. ....Ramadoss From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 01:41:29 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 02:41:29 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: I-Ching: Primal Correlates?? In-Reply-To: <199606030053.UAA14716@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199606030053.UAA14716@katie.vnet.net>, "John E. Mead" writes >I have not found this concept in the usual >sources (Wilhelms etc.) or Wings. > >peace - > >john e. mead John - I wonder if this *is* in Wilhelm (just looked into my copy) but called something else? Could it relate to the "nuclear trigrams" for instance? My copy has, in the Index, "Primal Arrangement, see Sequence of Earlier Heaven." ??? Peace, 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 Jun 3 01:44:02 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 02:44:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: chela? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Hi, you are correct in your response. For most "chela" in Theosophical >context has certain connotation. That is how I understood it. Now that you >have explained, the issue should be laid to rest satisfactorialy. > > ...Ramadoss As a matter of interest, I have seen many instances of Bjorn's use of "chela" in "popular" works of a theosophical or neo-theosophical nature - ie., anyone who makes a serious study of "The Mysteries." 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 Jun 3 13:43:26 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 14:43:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Heroes and heroines Mime-Version: 1.0 The following letter from Mrs. Besant appeared in "The Theosophic Messenger" in April, 1904: Benares City, Feb. 17, 1904. "My Dear Friends: I am told, on what ought to be good authority, that there is a growing tendency in the T.S. in London to consider me as a "sacrosanct personality, beyond and above criticism." Frankly, I cannot believe that any claim so wild and preposterous is set up, or that many know me so little as to imagine that, if it were set up, I would meet it with anything but the uttermost condemnation. Even a few people, holding and acting on such a theory, would be a danger to the Society. if any considerable number held and acted on it the Society would perish. Liberty of opinion is the life- breath of the Society; the fullest freedom in expressing opinions, and the fullest freedom in criticising opinions, are necessary for the preservation of the growth and evolution of the Society. A "commanding personality" - to use the cant of the day - may in many ways be of service to a movement, but in the Theosophical Society the work of such a personality would be too dearly purchased if it were bought by the surrender of individual freedom of thought, and the Society would be far safer if it did not number such a personality among its members. Over and over again I have emphasized this fact, and have urged free criticism of all opinions, my own among them. Like everybody else, I often make mistakes, and it is a poor service to me to confirm me in those mistakes by abstaining from criticism. I would sooner never write another word than have my words made into a gag for other people's thoughts. All my life I have followed the practice of reading the harshest criticisms, with a view to utilize them, and I do not mean, as I grow old, to help the growth of crystallization by evading the most rigorous criticism. Moreover, anything that has been done through me, not by me, for Theosophy, would be outbalanced immeasurably by making my crude knowledge a measure for the thinking in the movement, and by turning me into an obstacle of future progress. So, I pray you, if you come across any such absurd ideas as are mentioned above. that you will resist them in your own person and repudiate them on my behalf. No greater disservice could be done to the Society, or to me. than by allowing them to spread. It is further alleged that a policy of "ostracism" is enforced against those who do not hold this view of me. I cannot insult any member of the Society by believing that he would initiate or endorse such a policy. It is obvious that this would be an intolerable tyranny, to which no self-respecting man would submit. I may say, in passing, that in all selections for office in the movement, the sole consideration should be the power of the candidate to serve the Society, and not his opinion of any person - Col. Olcott, Mr. Sinnett, Mr. Mead or myself. We do not want faction fights for party leaders, but a free choice of the best man. Pardon me for troubling you with a formal repudiation of a view that seems too absurd to merit denial. But as it is gravely put to me as a fact, I cannot ignore it. For the Society, to me, is the object of my deepest love and service, my life is given to it, it embodies my ideal of a physical plane movement. And I would rather make myself ridiculous by tilting at a windmill, such as I believe this idea to be, than run the smallest chance of leaving to grow within the Society a form of personal idolatry which would be fatal to its usefulness to the world. In the T.S. there is no orthodoxy there are no Popes. It is a band of students eager to learn the truth, and growing ever in the knowledge thereof, and its well-being rests on the maintenance of this ideal. Ever your sincere friend, ANNIE BESANT." Posted by Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Jun 3 12:52:23 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 08:52:23 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606031357.JAA09923@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Bjorn R Bjorn, Coould you please explain in a little more detail who Ballard is. I've never heard of him, & I suppose a number of us on theos-l haven't either. I'd really be interested in hearing about him. Thanks. Liesel From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 15:13:22 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:13:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Heroes and heroines In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alan: You have done a great service to Theosophy by posting AB's statement. I am printing a hard copy and faxing it to John Algeo with a request that it be published in the next AT. I hope he publishes it. Cheers ...Ramadoss From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 15:22:43 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:22:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603112242_209384110@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Rich, Now really, you can howl. Just look up at the full moon and try. Chuck the Wolf MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 15:22:52 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:22:52 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603112251_209384203@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Discussions Alan, Anyone who looks to us for role modelling is in real trouble. :-) That is, unless they value independence of thought and action combined with an hopefully honest search for truth. Chuck the Wolf, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 15:23:05 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:23:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603112304_209384323@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: I-Ching: Primal Correlates?? John, I've never heard of it either. I hope someone out there can give us some info. Chuck From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 14:25:46 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 15:25:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Clean up In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960603075859.006acc80@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960603075859.006acc80@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >If Theosophy is to have a future, we have to >clean up our past, ... and our present? 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 Jun 3 14:23:21 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 15:23:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Intelligence Tests In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960603063653.006cc3e0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960603063653.006cc3e0@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >Now as to intelligence tests? Most academics in the field of education >consider them to be a very poor indicator of intelligence at all. O Shit! That's me blown out of the water again! Alan @-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 17:25:29 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 10:25:29 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603172529.006b7924@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Contributions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS At 07:11 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: Doss: With all due respect to you, I would like to offer some observations regarding your remarks concerning the "contributions of A.B. and C.W.L. to Theosophy and The theosophical Society". >There have been some mention about the contributions of Annie Besant and C W >Leadbeater to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. > >It was during the time of Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater, the membership of >the Theosophical Society, Adyar grew enormously until the drop after J >Krishnamurti made his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement. The Question is: Was it either moral or ethical to have put Jiddu Krishnamurti in a position in which he was driven to make such a speech? I don't believe it is possible to avoid the idea that because of Bishop Leadbeater's obsession with J.K. the man's childhood was totally blighted. It is also an important aspect of this to inquire why and how the "membership grew enormously" during the tenure of Mrs Besant and Charles Leadbeater. It is my belief that it grew for different reasons in Europe and India. I think that in India it grew because of Mrs. Besant's work in the Congress Party, and because of Indian Nationalism being so very strongly furthered by the efforts and financial contributions of The Theosophical Society. In Europe it grew primarily because of the efforts of the immediate followers of H.P.B. and because it was a social fad. It cannot be denied that in Europe, the theosophical movement was an upper-class phenomenon, and was especially popular among the creative people who had been originally drawn in by Mme.. Blavatsky (i.e. Vasily Kandinsky and Paul Klee and Piet Mondrian and Alexander Scriabin and Eric Satie). I think that by the time of the Krishnamurti speech, most of these people had been driven away by the sensationalism and "fairy tale" quality of Leadbeater's work. Mrs. Besant's written works are simply "mirror images" of Leadbeater's works, and this is true too of Arundale, Jinarajadasa, and Sri Ram etc. It is my very strong belief that were the written works of Charles Webster Leadbeater to somehow never have been written, the works of all these other writers would never have come into being. It is certainly not exaggerating to say that what Theosophy is today, is what it was made to be by Charles Leadbeater with the acquiescence of Mrs Besant. > >If you look at the current statistics of the various organizations in the >Theosophical Movement, the membership and the number of countries in which >branches are active, TS, Adyar is the largest. All the other Theosophy >organizations have membership which are very small and the countries in >which they are active are few. (If anyone has statistical information to >support or dispute this, I would welcome it). In view of the proportionate ratio of membership to population, in a world population of some four and one half Billion, the membership in all of the Theosophical Societies put together is entirely insignificant. If one were to subtract the number of members in India, it would even be more significant. I am persuaded that the reasons for membership are not at all the same in India and the rest of the world. I have had much contact with Indian Nationals who are not Theosophists and I have always been very unhappy regarding the level of hostility I have encountered vis a vis the T.S. > >While Olcott established branches far and wide, it is the lectures and books >of AB and CWL which introduced Theosophy to most of the members. I am one >of those who benefitted by reading the books and lectures of AB and CWL. The very first Theosophical Books I ever read were Leadbeater's "Masters and the Path" and "The Inner Life", and I am sure that you are completely correct when you say that many, if not most, people are introduced to Theosophy by these and other works of Leadbeater and Besant. But for me that was nearly thirty years ago, I have learned much in the interim. I have studied much in the interim. I have had much experience in the interim. With all due respect I must say that I find myself very resentful for all the many "errors" (to say the least) in those writings. In the course of the last thirty years I have discovered the Good Bishop to have been so very wrong about so many things, and when one compares his words with his actions, so terribly hypocritical, that I am angry at myself for having been so gullible as to have been duped. > >But for the contributions of AB and CWL, IMHO, TS, Adyar would now have the >membership and geographical coverage similar to that of the other TS >organizations. Doss, there's just no way anyone can make such an estimation. There's also the great possibility that without the shame of the Krishnamurti incident and the scandals surrounding the Bishop, the T.S. would be a much larger and more significant organization. It would also possibly not be fragmented. because the schism with the American section and W.Q.Judge was, in my estimation wholly at the instigation, and the result of the ambitions of, Annie Besant. > >As the facts speak for themselves, and each can draw their own conclusions >about the contributions of AB and CWL. The strange thing about "facts" Doss, is that they are not the same to each person. To arrive at those "facts" I think, one is obliged to go outside of "Theosophical Sources". > >As one Adept said "Ingratitude is not one of our vices,", let us ponder over >what AB and CWL have contributed to Theosophy and TS. Ah, but once again, that is entirely a matter of perspective. You think they helped Theosophy so you are grateful. I think they harmed Theosophy greatly and so gratitude is irrelevant. > > > ....Ramadoss > > People can disagree, and disagree strongly, and still be Brothers and Friends: I admire you greatly for all your efforts. alexis d. > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Jun 3 17:27:14 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:27:14 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606031727.AA05595@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: "Isis Unveiled" question >Am I understanding "correctly" when Ms. Blavatsky states that >incarnation into the physical more than once is an exception, >rather than the rule? That surprised me; I have read a bit about >theosophy but hadn't come across that viewpoint. Blavatsky in ISIS UNVEILED is speaking of the reincarnation of the personality as being an exception in nature. The concept of reincarnation of the personality was made popular at that time by a French Spiritualist named Alan Kardec. Blavatsky argues against Kardec's concept in ISIS, but does not introduce her own concept of reincarnation until after the teaching concerning the principles of the human constitution are introduced. later introduced a different concept--reincarnation of the individuality (spiritual ego), of which the personality is only an ephemeral ray. Critics of reincarnation often refer to Blavatsky's statement in ISIS UNVEILED as evidence that HPB did not believe in reincarnation at first and adopted it later. But these critics are not making that distinction that HPB clearly made in ISIS UNVEILED--the personality vs the individuality. >I had read >that Theosophy espouses to long periods (over 1000 years) >between incarnations, but that would allow for many more >incarnations than one or two. The period between incarnations was given in the Mahatma Letters as an average of 100 years per year of life. The average period between incarnations was also stated to be about 1500 years. Since HPB taught that the fifth root race (i.e. fifth stage of human evolution) began five million years ago, that leaves time for lots of incarnations in this period alone. >Yet, also, the long period of >rest between incarnations seems to go against Eastern philosophy >which accepts even immediate re-incarnations. Popular Hinduism also teaches that people reincarnate as animals plants and even rocks, depending upon their "karma." Personally, HPB's concept of reincarnation makes more sense to me. >Is there a publication or source which could help clarify or >suggest a consensus to these philosophies? Perhaps I am >premature in my confusion - will this be addressed in "The >Secret Doctrine?" > >Thank You, > >Kym I recommend that you read THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY next. It will give you an overview of HPB's teachings in a very straight forward question and answer format. She discusses reincarnation and what reincarnates in some detail there. To fully grasp the teaching, you will need to carefully read what she says about the human constitution in the same book. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 3 17:40:36 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 10:40:36 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960603174036.006c3c38@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Heroes and heroines At 10:03 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >The following letter from Mrs. Besant appeared in "The Theosophic >Messenger" in April, 1904: > And what an absolutely fascinating letter it is! It could have been written by Blavatsky herself it's so open and frank. Now, I must begin to wonder: If it is in fact as sincere as it seems to be, then what in heaven's name happened to the woman between 1904 and her death in 1933? When I look at Mrs. Besant in her robes of Office, I can only wonder how it came to pass that the woman who wrote this wonderfully wise letter could have permitted herself to be transmogrified into a veritable "Pope of Theosophy"? It is simply stupefying to realize that her predictions as to what would occur if she was to be "iconized" have come so completely true. I certainly think a discussion of how the total change came about is worthy of our time. What do you think Alan? alexis > Benares City, Feb. 17, 1904. > >"My Dear Friends: > >I am told, on what ought to be good authority, that there is a growing >tendency in the T.S. in London to consider me as a "sacrosanct >personality, beyond and above criticism." > >Frankly, I cannot believe that any claim so wild and preposterous >is set up, or that many know me so little as to imagine that, if it >were set up, I would meet it with anything but the uttermost >condemnation. Even a few people, holding and acting on such a theory, >would be a danger to the Society. if any considerable number held and >acted on it the Society would perish. Liberty of opinion is the life- >breath of the Society; the fullest freedom in expressing opinions, and >the fullest freedom in criticising opinions, are necessary for the >preservation of the growth and evolution of the Society. A "commanding >personality" - to use the cant of the day - may in many ways be of >service to a movement, but in the Theosophical Society the work of such >a personality would be too dearly purchased if it were bought by the >surrender of individual freedom of thought, and the Society would be far >safer if it did not number such a personality among its members. > >Over and over again I have emphasized this fact, and have urged free >criticism of all opinions, my own among them. Like everybody else, >I often make mistakes, and it is a poor service to me to confirm me >in those mistakes by abstaining from criticism. I would sooner never >write another word than have my words made into a gag for other people's >thoughts. All my life I have followed the practice of reading the >harshest criticisms, with a view to utilize them, and I do not mean, >as I grow old, to help the growth of crystallization by evading the >most rigorous criticism. Moreover, anything that has been done through >me, not by me, for Theosophy, would be outbalanced immeasurably by >making my crude knowledge a measure for the thinking in the movement, >and by turning me into an obstacle of future progress. > >So, I pray you, if you come across any such absurd ideas as are >mentioned above. that you will resist them in your own person and >repudiate them on my behalf. No greater disservice could be done to the >Society, or to me. than by allowing them to spread. > >It is further alleged that a policy of "ostracism" is enforced against >those who do not hold this view of me. I cannot insult any member >of the Society by believing that he would initiate or endorse such >a policy. It is obvious that this would be an intolerable tyranny, >to which no self-respecting man would submit. I may say, in passing, >that in all selections for office in the movement, the sole >consideration should be the power of the candidate to serve the Society, >and not his opinion of any person - Col. Olcott, Mr. Sinnett, Mr. Mead >or myself. We do not want faction fights for party leaders, but a free >choice of the best man. > >Pardon me for troubling you with a formal repudiation of a view that >seems too absurd to merit denial. But as it is gravely put to me as >a fact, I cannot ignore it. For the Society, to me, is the object >of my deepest love and service, my life is given to it, it embodies >my ideal of a physical plane movement. And I would rather make myself >ridiculous by tilting at a windmill, such as I believe this idea to >be, than run the smallest chance of leaving to grow within the Society >a form of personal idolatry which would be fatal to its usefulness >to the world. In the T.S. there is no orthodoxy there are no Popes. >It is a band of students eager to learn the truth, and growing ever >in the knowledge thereof, and its well-being rests on the maintenance >of this ideal. > > Ever your sincere friend, > > ANNIE BESANT." > >Posted by Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 15:46:53 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:46:53 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606031749.AA09577@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 02:12 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Both the Bishop and Annie Besant are long passed away, but their influence >on the society, which I view as pernicious, has not. Alexis: I have a special interest in Annie Besant and her writings. So far I have seen some psychic elements of influence that came through her and that I would agree were pernicious, but I haven't seen this in her writings. Can you give examples? Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 15:47:02 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:47:02 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606031749.AE09577@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Contributions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS At 07:11 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >As one Adept said "Ingratitude is not one of our vices,", let us ponder over >what AB and CWL have contributed to Theosophy and TS. Yes, that is a very good starting point. Then, coming from that perspective we can also learn from their mistakes, so they do not have to be perpetuated. Let us have TRUTH, but not without compassion. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 15:47:10 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:47:10 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606031749.AB09577@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Heroes and heroines Thank you, Alan, for digging this up and sharing it with us At 10:03 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >The following letter from Mrs. Besant appeared in "The Theosophic >Messenger" in April, 1904: > roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 15:47:00 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:47:00 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606031749.AD09577@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Attention: Liesel and Alexis At 04:07 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Bjorn: I've Mastered (by love alone) a large male wolf, surely I can Master >my own temper! To master ones own temper by love - I believe that to be a key to real mastery. >I sincerely hope so, mais que sera, sera. By the way I lived in Stockhom >for almost two years when I was infinitely younger (the early 1950's) Wow, you must be ancient! I thought I am old and I was BORN in the early 50ies. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 3 17:57:48 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 12:57:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Contributions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960603172529.006b7924@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alexis: Glad you posted the message. I would let the readers here to make up their own mind on the matter. ...Doss Ramadoss On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > At 07:11 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Doss: > > With all due respect to you, I would like to offer some observations > regarding your remarks concerning the "contributions of A.B. and C.W.L. to > Theosophy and The theosophical Society". > > >There have been some mention about the contributions of Annie Besant and C W > >Leadbeater to Theosophy and Theosophical Society. > > > >It was during the time of Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater, the membership of > >the Theosophical Society, Adyar grew enormously until the drop after J > >Krishnamurti made his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement. > > The Question is: > > Was it either moral or ethical to have put Jiddu Krishnamurti in a position > in which he was driven to make such a speech? I don't believe it is possible > to avoid the idea that because of Bishop Leadbeater's obsession with J.K. > the man's childhood was totally blighted. It is also an important aspect of > this to inquire why and how the "membership grew enormously" during the > tenure of Mrs Besant and Charles Leadbeater. It is my belief that it grew > for different reasons in Europe and India. I think that in India it grew > because of Mrs. Besant's work in the Congress Party, and because of Indian > Nationalism being so very strongly furthered by the efforts and financial > contributions of The Theosophical Society. In Europe it grew primarily > because of the efforts of the immediate followers of H.P.B. and because it > was a social fad. It cannot be denied that in Europe, the theosophical > movement was an upper-class phenomenon, and was especially popular among the > creative people who had been originally drawn in by Mme.. Blavatsky (i.e. > Vasily Kandinsky and Paul Klee and Piet Mondrian and Alexander Scriabin and > Eric Satie). I think that by the time of the Krishnamurti speech, most of > these people had been driven away by the sensationalism and "fairy tale" > quality of Leadbeater's work. Mrs. Besant's written works are simply "mirror > images" of Leadbeater's works, and this is true too of Arundale, > Jinarajadasa, and Sri Ram etc. It is my very strong belief that were the > written works of Charles Webster Leadbeater to somehow never have been > written, the works of all these other writers would never have come into > being. It is certainly not exaggerating to say that what Theosophy is today, > is what it was made to be by Charles Leadbeater with the acquiescence of Mrs > Besant. > > > >If you look at the current statistics of the various organizations in the > >Theosophical Movement, the membership and the number of countries in which > >branches are active, TS, Adyar is the largest. All the other Theosophy > >organizations have membership which are very small and the countries in > >which they are active are few. (If anyone has statistical information to > >support or dispute this, I would welcome it). > > In view of the proportionate ratio of membership to population, in a world > population of some four and one half Billion, the membership in all of the > Theosophical Societies put together is entirely insignificant. If one were > to subtract the number of members in India, it would even be more > significant. I am persuaded that the reasons for membership are not at all > the same in India and the rest of the world. I have had much contact with > Indian Nationals who are not Theosophists and I have always been very > unhappy regarding the level of hostility I have encountered vis a vis the T.S. > > > >While Olcott established branches far and wide, it is the lectures and books > >of AB and CWL which introduced Theosophy to most of the members. I am one > >of those who benefitted by reading the books and lectures of AB and CWL. > > The very first Theosophical Books I ever read were Leadbeater's "Masters and > the Path" and "The Inner Life", and I am sure that you are completely > correct when you say that many, if not most, people are introduced to > Theosophy by these and other works of Leadbeater and Besant. But for me that > was nearly thirty years ago, I have learned much in the interim. I have > studied much in the interim. I have had much experience in the interim. With > all due respect I must say that I find myself very resentful for all the > many "errors" (to say the least) in those writings. > > In the course of the last thirty years I have discovered the Good Bishop to > have been so very wrong about so many things, and when one compares his > words with his actions, so terribly hypocritical, that I am angry at myself > for having been so gullible as to have been duped. > > > >But for the contributions of AB and CWL, IMHO, TS, Adyar would now have the > >membership and geographical coverage similar to that of the other TS > >organizations. > > Doss, there's just no way anyone can make such an estimation. There's also > the great possibility that without the shame of the Krishnamurti incident > and the scandals surrounding the Bishop, the T.S. would be a much larger and > more significant organization. It would also possibly not be fragmented. > because the schism with the American section and W.Q.Judge was, in my > estimation wholly at the instigation, and the result of the ambitions of, > Annie Besant. > > > >As the facts speak for themselves, and each can draw their own conclusions > >about the contributions of AB and CWL. > > The strange thing about "facts" Doss, is that they are not the same to each > person. To arrive at those "facts" I think, one is obliged to go outside of > "Theosophical Sources". > > > > > >As one Adept said "Ingratitude is not one of our vices,", let us ponder over > >what AB and CWL have contributed to Theosophy and TS. > > Ah, but once again, that is entirely a matter of perspective. You think they > helped Theosophy so you are grateful. I think they harmed Theosophy greatly > and so gratitude is irrelevant. > > > > > > > ....Ramadoss > > > > > People can disagree, and disagree strongly, and still be Brothers and Friends: > > I admire you greatly for all your efforts. > > alexis d. > > > > From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 15:59:18 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 11:59:18 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606031801.AA09714@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Interesting work on Jesus and early Christianity: http://www.skypoint.com/members/ceo/ THE CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY=A9=20 The Orthodox Suppression of Original Christianity=20 _________________________=20 Now for the first time in one book, after more than 10 years of research= =20 Joseph P. Macchio uncovers these startling facts: Texts concerning the origin and proliferation of evil were destroyed by the Church Fathers 1,800 years ago.=20 =20 Ancient Christian texts contained secret teachings of Jesus, that may be necessary for salvation.=20 =20 Traces the lineage of the mysterious Christian Gnostics.=20 =20 Why and how did Irenaeus, Augustine, and others reformulate Christian dogma their way.=20 =20 The mystery teachings of Jesus are not included in the New Testament.=20 =20 Church Fathers suppressed amazing evidence about Jesus' life in Kashmir, India years after the crucifixion.=20 roxendal@alpinet.net From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Jun 3 21:03:27 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 14:03:27 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606032103.AA13111@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: attention: Liesel and Alexis Alexis writes: >...but I will also never be silenced on a subject I consider to >be of paramount importance to the future of theosophy. If >Theosophy is to have a future, we have to clean up our past, and >CWL is an important part of that past. Here is the rub. Here we are in a theosophical discussion group which should imply a freedom to explore theosophical subjects in all of its aspects. The only limitation I remember reading when I joined was that we are supposed to be considerate to others on the list. To me, this rule means that we are not supposed to hurl insults at each other. That is a reasonable request IMO. But if this rule also means that we cannot discuss certain theosophically relevant subjects if some subscribers object to them, then we are in deep trouble. Over the past years, I discussed some of the issues concerning CWL in some depth on theos-l. I did so because, like Alexis, I believe that a frank discussion and exploration of the activities and teachings of this man should be a legitimate topic of discussion on theos-l, not to mention TSA. I had hoped that the discussions would stimulate some thinking and questions among the readers concerning the past and future direction of the TS. After all, when the TS was formed, it was meant to be an organization where people were brought together by their desire to seek for truth. I think this is still a noble cause. But today, the TS is predominately a membership which has no idea what is going on and apparently goes to extreme efforts to avoid knowing. There are others who live in a fantasy world of theosophical lore about neighboring planets populated by little green men, a "smiling" solar logos who is in charge of this planet, and rocks that fall in love with little boys who sit on them. The TS over the past 100 years has indeed become a confused mess and there doesn't seem to be enough people interested in theosophy in its original sense who want to get to the bottom of that confusion. IMO the apathy, denial and self imposed ignorance of the majority of the membership is more to blame for the failure of the TS than all of the bad and/or ineffective leaders and policies put together. After over thirty years of fighting apathy and getting burned by those in power who are threatened by change, I've come to the point where I fully understand that famous line: "Frankly, Miss Scarlet, I don't give a damn." But if there are two or three people on this list who are willing to discuss CWL's effect on the TS, and this discussion is motivated from an intellectual integrity--a desire for truth, and they are willing to stand up to the aggressive and passive- aggressive abuses of those who do not wish this subject to be discussed, I would be more than happy to join in and add considerably more information beyond what I had contributed in the past--that is, once this topic progresses to the point where I had last left off. The only weapon we have against ignorance is knowledge. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 3 22:16:04 1996 Date: 03 Jun 96 18:16:04 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! Message-Id: <960603221604_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM> Bjorn: >There are many chelas in the theosophic movement. One of the reasons it was >founded was to provide an environment for chelas and would-be chelas to meet >and receive training Would someone please pass this information on to the various TS headquarters. It seems to me that they need to know this. It is certainly news to me. Where can I go for my training? Jerry S. Member, TI From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Jun 3 22:42:24 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 15:42:24 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606032242.AA16770@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: Contricutions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS >It was during the time of Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater, the >membership of the Theosophical Society, Adyar grew enormously >until the drop after J Krishnamurti made his famous "Truth is a >Pathless Land" statement. True. The TS was originally a provocative philosophical movement until 1908 when AB and CWL changed it into a cult dedicated to the worship of Krishnamurti as the World Teacher. After the "Pathless land" speech and K's resignation, the TS membership dropped dramatically and steadily. >If you look at the current statistics of the various >organizations in the Theosophical Movement, the membership and >the number of countries in which branches are active, TS, Adyar >is the largest. All the other Theosophy organizations have >membership which are very small and the countries in which they >are active are few. (If anyone has statistical information to >support or dispute this, I would welcome it). What is your point? >But for the contributions of AB and CWL, IMHO, TS, Adyar would >now have the membership and geographical coverage similar to >that of the other TS organizations. How can you compare? The Pasadena Society closed all of their Lodges in 1904. They rechartered new Lodges in 1930 and closed them again in 1951. So of course the Adyar TS has more membership, they have been a membership Organization dedicated to building a large membership from the beginning. The Pasadena TS has not been so dedicated for most of its history. ULT has no membership and no dues--it never had any. If you were talking about three membership Organizations that have been continuously operating as such, then I would say that you have a fair bases of comparison upon which to make your above statement. But this is not the case. >While Olcott established branches far and wide, it is the >lectures and books of AB and CWL which introduced Theosophy to >most of the members. I am one of those who benefitted by reading >the books and lectures of AB and CWL. True. They flooded the market with their own books and promoted them while leaving HPB's writings to be forgotten tombs. >As the facts speak for themselves, and each can draw their own >conclusions about the contributions of AB and CWL. True. And depending upon which selection of "facts" you want to present, one can make them say almost anything. >As one Adept said "Ingratitude is not one of our vices,", let us >ponder over what AB and CWL have contributed to Theosophy and >TS. OK--I'm pondering........I give up. What have they contributed for which I should be grateful? JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 22:47:29 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:47:29 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603184729_548531116@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Universal Family of Humanity John, A good posting. I actually read through it without my eyes glazing over once. I shold explain something. There are other reasons for creating alt.theosophy than merely reacting to some of the stuff here. I had been thinking about a newsgroup from the time I got on the net and the opportunity appeared. It gives us a chance, if I can ever post on it, to get to millions of people, something HPB could only dream about. And there were some technical, mechanical problems with the list that were annoying, that had nothing to do with John Mead (who is undoubtedly acquired so much good karma for this that he is on his way to Nirvana), but merely part of the computer network. Glad to see you're back. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 3 22:47:36 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:47:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960603184735_548531193@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters Doing? Alex, Yep, yesterday really was his birthday. We have birthday party for him every year and my arm is tired. Chuck the Atrocious, MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 22:02:19 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:02:19 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Heroes and heroines In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960603174036.006c3c38@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960603174036.006c3c38@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >>The following letter from Mrs. Besant appeared in "The Theosophic >>Messenger" in April, 1904: [quote omitted] >> >And what an absolutely fascinating letter it is! It could have been written >by Blavatsky herself it's so open and frank. Now, I must begin to wonder: If >it is in fact as sincere as it seems to be, then what in heaven's name >happened to the woman between 1904 and her death in 1933? >When I look at Mrs. Besant in her robes of Office, I can only wonder how it >came to pass that the woman who wrote this wonderfully wise letter could >have permitted herself to be transmogrified into a veritable "Pope of >Theosophy"? > >It is simply stupefying to realize that her predictions as to what would >occur if she was to be "iconized" have come so completely true. > >I certainly think a discussion of how the total change came about is worthy >of our time. What do you think Alan? Well, this is a start on some research, and there will possibly be other letters. The one I posted was reproduced by the editor(s) of "The Theosophic Voice" in 1908. This only went to three issues (in Chicago). Most of its content was taken up with the CWL affair, his resignation from the T.S. and later reinstatement. I have some more reading to do, as I have the temporary loan of all three issues. All being well, more historical material will arrive in Bristol on Wednesday ... 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 Jun 3 23:18:26 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 00:18:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Desire for Truth In-Reply-To: <9606032103.AA13111@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9606032103.AA13111@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >But if there are two or three people on this list who are willing >to discuss CWL's effect on the TS, and this discussion is >motivated from an intellectual integrity--a desire for truth, and >they are willing to stand up to the aggressive and passive- >aggressive abuses of those who do not wish this subject to be >discussed, I would be more than happy to join in and add >considerably more information beyond what I had contributed in >the past--that is, once this topic progresses to the point where >I had last left off. > >The only weapon we have against ignorance is knowledge. > >JHE > Count me in, 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 Jun 3 21:53:39 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:53:39 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Heroes and heroines In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Alan: > >You have done a great service to Theosophy by posting AB's statement. ***blush*** 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 Jun 4 00:34:54 1996 Date: 03 Jun 96 20:34:54 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant Message-Id: <960604003454_76400.1474_HHL52-3@CompuServe.COM> Doss: >I have been trying to make Theosophy practical in the sense that I >try to apply the ideal of Universal Brotherhood to help any man(woman) or >any other entity that I can help. So I feel there is a practical side to >Theosophy. In a large sense, I agree with you completely. However, Christians learn in Church to turn the other cheek, and to return hate with love, and so on. Many try to put that into practice. Are you implying that we all basically all on the same Path? Could you tell me what the difference is, in your view, between theosophical altruism and any other practicing Christian or other religious person? The reason that I bring this up, Doss, is that altruism, to me, is a given, and very first step that we all should have learned in Church before coming into Theosophy. I would hope that a theosophist is a cut above the average religious person because a theosophist has Knowledge that the Christian or Jew or Mulsim doesn't have. I guess what I am suggesting here, is that maybe there is more to being a practicing theosophist than merely being altruistic (?). Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 4 00:34:46 1996 Date: 03 Jun 96 20:34:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Message-Id: <960604003446_76400.1474_HHL52-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard: >Well, I don't know about this "sheep and wolves thing." If it were anyone >other than Jerry S. touting the wolves, I would probably animadvert in more >strenuous fashion; however, in Jerry's case I have learned that waiting with >my objections often turns out to be the best policy--since my gainsayings >usually disappear on their own. I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I prefer wolves to sheep. They both have their good points and bad points. I actually would consider myself a sheepish-wolf. >Still . . . for the time being, number me with the sheep, or better yet the >lambs (or better yet, a semi-shepard of myself, at least). . . . You are way too modest. A sheepish-wolf if I ever saw one. Meditation (which you espouse) is a sure way to turn any sheep a bit wolfish. A true sheep steers clear of meditation for fear it will change him (or her) -- which it will. >I don't know . . . all a person has to rely on in the end is or her own line >of development, isn't it? Yes. But if we rely only on our book-learning, then what happens to us after death, when we go through Devachan and all our mental baggage is dropped? At birth, we must start all over again, bringing with us, perhaps, but the love of books. > Certainly, the result of my own is the reverse of >what has been suggested: It seems like much more the case >that I started out as a wolf and turned into a-- This could only happen if your meditative experiences totally confimed your understanding of the literature. An interesting idea. In my own case, this is true to a very large extent, but there is a small portion of the literature that just won't jive, and I simply have to let it go. >Well, who knows? All I can say is that I have now become far too gentle to >be a proper wolf any more. As Alexis has noted, wolves are actually gentle. Sheep can be as nasty as anything, you know. My use of the terms, spawned by Bjorn's horror at what he called the theosophical "wolves," was not directed at gentleness vs nastiness but rather at sheepishly following the literature, or using one's experiences to wolfishly shift the chaff from the theosophical wheat. Eldon's use of the metaphor of mining gold is apt, because for every nugget of gold there is a lot of coal and dirt that must be cleared away. And what, but meditation, can we possibly use to accomplish this filtration in any meaningful way? > If I do inflict pain, the awareness of the fact >that I have done so usually makes me suffer more than my victim. Me too, but a wolf is actually a sensitive animal, while most sheep are relatively insensitive to the pain to others. The analogy here is applicable primarily because from the sheep's point of view the wolf is a walking horror with no compassion at all, while from the wolf's viewpoint we have an entirely different situation. This idea may be seen more clearly from the Zen viewpoint. When a student says something to his Master that the Master interprets as too much reliance on literature, the Master may respond by hitting the student with a stick. While this act can be seen as lacking compassion, it just may be exactly what the student needs to bring about satori. Now, I am not suggesting that the wolves are Masters and the sheep are students. That is where the Zen analogy breaks down. But otherwise the idea is pretty close. The wolf vs sheep is really a case of book-reading vs experience, and the wolf's message is that without experience, one is simply a follower of what someone else has said. Even when our experience confirms what we have read, the information itself becomes a felt-knowledge rather than just head-knowledge and the sheep turns into a wolf. Our head-knowledge is discarded during the Devchan, while felt-knowledge is brought with us into our next life. Thus the importance of distinguishing between the two. >This might turn out to be a bad thing to do, and naturally it is predicated >on the completely unsupported assumption that for some reason I think I have >the "Vantage of Perspective" on the other person's psychogenetic condition. Agreed. This is the inherent danger of the wolf's attempt to "change the sheep or else." The fact is, some sheep (like Eldon) prefer to remain so, and are quite happy with themselves, and I agree that those don't need changing. But what about all of the sheep who have responded in ugly and mean-spirited reprisal? What happened to the compassion that they themselves are supposed to manifest? If such sheep would look at themselves in the mirror, they might not see the gentle and loving souls that they envisioned themselves to be. The wolf's message to those, is simply to lighten up, get a sense of humor, learn not to take things personally, learn to control your ego, and so on. Sheep, the real sheep, are living in a fool's paradise that will come crashing down on them at some point. They see the world in an image of how they want it to be, rather than how it really is (my days as a Christian Scientist proved to me that Christian Scientists are sheep). For this reason, I would say that Eldon, and doubtless others, are not real sheep. Now personally, I don't want to set myself up as any sheep's karmic agent. I am simply pointing out what is going on here on theos-l. Alexis and Chuck, however, must speak for themselves. >Nevertheless, my continuing hope, naturally, is that we have no ***holes on >this list and that everyone, no matter how wolfishly abrasive, does what he >or she does with high purpose and helpful intent. My hope too. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 4 00:34:51 1996 Date: 03 Jun 96 20:34:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant Message-Id: <960604003450_76400.1474_HHL52-2@CompuServe.COM> Jerry S.: >>... because theosophists who >> study the literature over a long period of time become convinced >> (falsely) that they know everything. The idea that one can understand... >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doss: > Agreed, No one can know everything. Its more than that, Doss. The human mind thinks that it can, and tries very hard. If it feels incompetent, it simply reads a bit more to try to learn faster. Its like a dog chasing its tail. It thinks that it can catch it by simply going faster. I know, because this is how I used to be. James Long noted this in me, and told me that I was trying to wrap truth up in a box tied neatly with a pretty ribbon. He pointed out that what I was trying to do, couldn't be done, and he suggested I stop reading and studying and instead try to assimilate what I had already read. The truth, in short, was already within me, if I could only see it. This pretty well changed me around, gave me a whole new worldview, and transformed me from a sheep to a wolf, for which I will be eternally gratefully. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 4 00:34:57 1996 Date: 03 Jun 96 20:34:57 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: re: CWL Message-Id: <960604003456_76400.1474_HHL52-4@CompuServe.COM> Jerry HE: >But if there are two or three people on this list who are willing >to discuss CWL's effect on the TS, and this discussion is >motivated from an intellectual integrity--a desire for truth, and >they are willing to stand up to the aggressive and passive- >aggressive abuses of those who do not wish this subject to be >discussed, I would be more than happy to join in and add >considerably more information... Count me in. Jerry S. Member, TI From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 23:09:26 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 19:09:26 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040111.AB14782@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 04:45 PM 6/3/96 -0400, Alexis wrote: > >As to your "meeting the Master Jesus"..that which cannot be empirically >proven shouldn't be "testified to". Dear Alexis, can you tell me who made the rule that only that which can be empirically proven should be shared with other people? Do you follow that rule yourself? Do you know *anyone* that follows that rule? If you do, what kind of person is that? The most important thing that cannot be >empirically proven is the concept that Jesus was ever a real and living >person. If that is so, it would then be hard to encounter "his" spirit, >would it not? Have you or anybody else proven that he was NOT a real and living person? If that has not been proven, either, then it follows that it could be entirely possible that he WAS a real and living person, right? I mean, so far nothing is proven, right? Another fact to consider is that there are many beings in our universe who have never lived on this planet. Any number of them may be encountered, for better or for worse, as the case may be. What about your "spirits". Can they be empirically proven? I know that you have talked about them, even on this list. Or are you testifying about matters that are unseen (physically) and can not be empirically proven yourself? >My strong disapproval of Elisabeth Clair Prophet arises from my estimation >that the woman is entirely fraudulent. The same disapproval also arises from >a lot of reading of her printed words and they are totally unoriginal and un >valid. My disapproval of her "disciples" arises from the fact that I find it >inconceivable that anyone could fall for her words. These are almost the exact same words that were thrown at Blavatsky, thousands of times. What you do is expressing a strong personal opinion, which I certainly respect, but certainly no "proof". I have also studied her printed and spoken word, as those of her predecessor, Mark Prophet. I have meditated on the energies and consciousness content of the material, studied their auras and so forth, and have come to an ENTIRELY different conclusion. >In other words Bjorn, I don't "buy" your arguments. That's fine, I don't expect that. the utter superficiality and banality of her >writing leaves me totally aghast and appalled that anyone could "fall for it". Well, just like people fell for HPB they fall for ECP. And usually those who fall for her are intelligent people and independent thinkers. The only source where much of the teachings of this movement is to be found in a concentrated form is in the book "Climb the Highest Mountain". To me it seems hard to believe that this book (and others) can be perceived as "banal" or "superficial". IMO it is very much in the theosophic tradition and similar in vibration. I hope nobody on this list is even considering judging this matter based on either my or Alexis views, though. It is easy enough to check out for anyone who like to do so. Here are some web pages for a starter, including a short book list: http://www.tsl.org/ >You have been entirely "up front" and honest about your point of view, I >could do no other than be equally frank and honest in my response. I have no >animosity toward you are any of the people in the "I Am Movement" or the >"Church Universal and Triumphant" but i do have a good deal of pity. How do you show this "pity"? I mean how are you going to show me pity, now, seeing that I believe in these things? Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 3 23:09:23 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 19:09:23 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040111.AA14782@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Discussions At 04:48 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > I have been accused of a lot of things in >my life but being compared to the Unabomber was just too much. You proudly sign your messages "obnoxious troublemaker". Then when you get into some trouble you can't take it. Look, you are explicitly ASKING for trouble. You are *advertising* yourself as a troublemaker. What, then, are you complaining about??? If you are a troublemaker, and proud of it, why then chicken out and put me on your filter list when you are starting to be successful in stirring up some trouble??? Some troublemaker! I thought it >was a joke, at first, sort of like the clowning about between me and JRC, but no, the man is serious. Nobody asked me if it was a joke or not. So far, you have not had any success reading my mind. If you would like to know what and how I meant it, you could just ask. And on top of it he claims to have a direct line to >the Masters! Which I did not claim at all. I mentioned that I made a concious contact with Jesus about 20 years ago. This was a major turning point and led me, after a few years, to Theosophy. And, the glorious being He is! Christianity know very little of the real Jesus. He is a magnificent Ascended Master, and I see nothing wrong with sharing experiences like this with other spiritually minded people. >I make a poor punching bag, but as I have now blasted him thoroughly Not at all, troublemaker. You need more powerful explosives to begin to blast me even a tiny little bit. Perhaps you should ask you know who for help? Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From kymsmith@micron.net Tue Jun 4 03:04:00 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 21:04 MDT From: kymsmith@micron.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Response to JRC's posting Dear JRC, Please excuse me if I have misunderstood your treatise on The First Object; but I took it to be saying we need to 'establish' this 'nucleus' or 'core'. . . and how this subject seems to be ignored in current Theosophical writings. However, my understanding is, from the beginning, The First Object had already been accomplished; the seed (nucleus) has already been formed; it is the "I AM." Theosophy is not the 'nucleus,' simply the translater of it into forms in which the physical mind can contemplate on and learn from. We are already a "family" (although, disturbingly, that term implies implicit heirarchy - adults over children, leaders over followers). Whether we choose as societies to recognize we are family, it does not make it Not So. Truth is Truth, no matter what we believe or think it is. Every philosophy or religion thinks they are the ones "handed an 'opportunity' to accomplish a remarkable task on behalf of the spiritual kingdom on this planet." The problem is that some 'religions' have the "gift" of communicating in a language the "common" people understand - regardless of whether their teachings are 'correct' or not. People will believe or follow what they think they understand. Theosophical literature and writings are notorious (past and present) for expressing thoughts and ideas in ways too complex, wordy, and, blatantly arrogant to allow or provide for the 'seed' to become planted in those who may wish to explore Theosophy, those who want to find a different way. Although I adore Ms. Blavatsky, she too was guily of arrogance in her writings. Perhaps it is a subconscious way for 'us' to keep 'it' to ourselves, not wanting to let go of such a perfect pearl. This doesn't make us bad, just a bit more 'human' than perhaps some of us would care to admit. Yes, you are correct. Everything should be read and studied with the First Object in mind. We do need to study the minute things extensively too, for we must be able to provide answers to the questions those seeking Theosophy will ask; they will want to know details about reincarnation, karma, etc. And so they should. I have problems enough explaining the meaning of the swastika in the emblem! I am a university student (majoring in philsophy) and a published author, and yet, I struggle often with even the most recent writings of Theosophy (Quest Magazine is an example). This is not to blow my own personal horn, just to draw attention to the fact that most people out there have not had the fortunate opportunities for an education I have - what obstacles must they overcome in their quest for spiritual knowledge? Is Theosophy contributing to their obstacles? Please correct me if I have misunderstood you; nor take this as a 'personal attack.' I, on the other hand, take everything personal, so be kind when or if you respond to my diatribe. . .just kidding. . .well, maybe. Thank you for your time, Kym From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 4 03:22:37 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:22:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant In-Reply-To: <960604003454_76400.1474_HHL52-3@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Doss: > >I have been trying to make Theosophy practical in the sense that I > >try to apply the ideal of Universal Brotherhood to help any man(woman) or > >any other entity that I can help. So I feel there is a practical side to > >Theosophy. > > In a large sense, I agree with you completely. However, > Christians learn in Church to turn the other cheek, and to return > hate with love, and so on. Many try to put that into practice. Are > you implying that we all basically all on the same Path? Could > you tell me what the difference is, in your view, between > theosophical altruism and any other practicing Christian or > other religious person? The reason that I bring this up, Doss, is > that altruism, to me, is a given, and very first step that we all > should have learned in Church before coming into Theosophy. > I would hope that a theosophist is a cut above the average > religious person because a theosophist has Knowledge > that the Christian or Jew or Mulsim doesn't have. I guess > what I am suggesting here, is that maybe there is more to > being a practicing theosophist than merely being altruistic (?). I am just a novice and as such it is possible there is more to Theosophy than altruism. At this stage I am quite happy and contended with being altruistic towards anyone and everyone without distinction of caste creed race sex or color. May be different strokes for different people. ...Ramadoss > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 4 03:27:14 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:27:14 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant In-Reply-To: <960604003450_76400.1474_HHL52-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > Jerry S.: > >>... because theosophists who > >> study the literature over a long period of time become convinced > >> (falsely) that they know everything. The idea that one can understand... > >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Doss: > > Agreed, No one can know everything. > > Its more than that, Doss. The human mind thinks > that it can, and tries very hard. If it feels incompetent, it simply > reads a bit more to try to learn faster. Its like a dog chasing > its tail. It thinks that it can catch it by simply going faster. > I know, because this is how I used to be. James Long > noted this in me, and told me that I was trying to wrap > truth up in a box tied neatly with a pretty ribbon. He pointed > out that what I was trying to do, couldn't be done, and he > suggested I stop reading and studying and instead try to > assimilate what I had already read. The truth, in short, was > already within me, if I could only see it. This pretty well changed > me around, gave me a whole new worldview, and transformed > me from a sheep to a wolf, for which I will be eternally > gratefully. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI I am fully aware of it. In a recent book, the author explains this like someone being inside a prison and is trying to rearrange things or understand things all within a prison. What is needed is break out of the prison and come out as free person and metaphorically in such freedom you are transformed. ...Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 4 03:38:52 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:38:52 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Response to JRC's posting In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Dear JRC, > > I am a university student (majoring in philsophy) and a published author, > and yet, I struggle often with even the most recent writings of Theosophy > (Quest Magazine is an example). This is not to blow my own personal horn, > just to draw attention to the fact that most people out there have not had > the fortunate opportunities for an education I have - what obstacles must > they overcome in their quest for spiritual knowledge? Is Theosophy > contributing to their obstacles? You are not alone in finding the writings of Theosophy in Quest being difficult. I have been around Theosophy for quite some time, and I have found it very difficult to read and many times the magazine went straight into the waste paper basket immediately after it arrived. It appears that Quest is on its way to a natural death after the next three or so issues. ....Ramadoss From martinle@lainet.com Tue Jun 4 05:09:11 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:09:11 -0700 From: martinle@lainet.com (Martin Leiderman) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re: CWL On the CWL subject, my experience is that many new people come to our Lodge (Spanish speaking) because they read first CWL, and they are facinated by it. If CWL's effect on people is one of mystery and wonder, and push them to cross tamas or inertia to get involve in spirituality . . . I think is great. In my case, I was a teenager when I read The Third Eye, by L. Rampa. I care less if he did what he said . . . the point is he brought me to the New Acropolis and then to the Theosophical Society and I am still searching. Books and influence like that is better that a bad TV program, IMHO. I always ask myself, if I go to India and select one individual to be the World Teacher and I choose one like Krishnaji . . . alas! what are the odds??? . . . what do you think Ramadoss, my brother. Martin Leiderman, a Theosophist From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 4 05:19:23 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:19:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960604011921_127320530@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! Jerry, Considering the quality of people claiming to be chelas these days, I'm damned glad I'm not one. And I finally got onto my own newsgroup today! I used a local outfit called Ripco. Now all we need is for it to get to the bigger servers. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 03:31:14 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:31:14 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040533.AA17219@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To: Bjorn R At 10:04 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > Bjorn, >Could you please explain in a little more detail who Ballard is. I've never >heard of him, & I suppose a number of us on theos-l haven't either. I'd >really be interested in hearing about him. Thanks. > >Liesel Hello Liesel, Good to hear from you. At this time I don't like to post this to the group, mostly because I don't want to deal with Alexis' reactions. But I will come up with something and Email to you, privately. Maybe I'll post it too, I don't know. The major problem is that I don't know what to write, since your question deserves an answer that gives more information than a quick email can do. He was a messenger of the Great White Brotherhood, working primarily under Saint Germain. The teaching emphasizes the Presence of God within us, they call it the "I AM Presence", and they give specific techniques for using its Light and Power for individual and world transformation. Dictations were given by several Ascended Masters. These were not channelings, as have become so popular lately. Please read this page http://home.earthlink.net/~futurecon/channel.html that explains the fallacy of channeling and psychism. Qoute: >One of the most humorous aspects of the New Age movement has been >the race by psychics and channels to out-do each other in claiming contact >with high souls. While one channeler regularly has tea with the Mahatmas, >another psychic decides to go it one better and channel God (as if there >were such a person!) This has forced other channels and mediums into >making up imaginary names of deities from distant, imaginary solar >systems in order to produce a plethora of high, non-competingGods so >each can preserve a somewhat unique niche for their own channeling >efforts. > >A channeler is nothing more than a medium with a fancy name. All the >great metaphysical leaders have spoken out strongly against this growing >tide of psychism. Blavatsky, Roerich, Hilarion, Manly Palmer Hall--all >agree that psychism is a huge blight on the phantasmagorical world of >psychic phenomena. In fact, mediums (read: channels) have often been >referred to by the Ancient Wisdom as "Inns for disembodied liars." How Ballard was trained and several of his retreat experiences are described in "Unveiled Mysteries" and "The Magic Presence". Fascinating accounts, unparallelled in the field of spiritual literature. Since this movement more emphasizes active work for personal and planetary transformation than intellectual understanding of umpteen details of the cosmic order it may appear "simple" compared to Theosophy. But the energies and the light that comes through it will readily convince the sensitive seeker more than a hundred intellectually advanced books could do. I will be happy to try to answer any question or help you find the above mentioned books, should you be interested (they are available through most metaphysical book stores). I am not a member of this organization but I have benefitted immensly from the more direct contact with my own God Self that I have been helped to and the closer walk with the Masters also. God Bless You! Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From martinle@lainet.com Tue Jun 4 05:22:18 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:22:18 -0700 From: martinle@lainet.com (Martin Leiderman) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Bjorn Dear brother Bjorn, I notice certain pleasure in answering to Alexis the way you do. I think is more productive to the list if we all share the best of us, and no responding to the worst of us. In the Platonic way, we are here, as friends to share the knowledge and tools we have learnt in this life and the wisdom we brought with us + the one we are able to transmute . . . all that may be powered by the sharing of ideas, so we do not have to rediscover everything again. I am most interested in knowing what you have to say about what tools and knowledge you got to share and in exchange I would do the same, and I am sure others will chip in. Theosophy distills the essence of the Truth by sharing it. The result is not Truth itself, but we are closer by understanding better or by knowing what is not. Your brother, Martin Leiderman, just a Theosophist From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 05:41:11 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 22:41:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604054111.006b0a34@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl At 11:24 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Rich, >Now really, you can howl. Just look up at the full moon and try. > >Chuck the Wolf MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >Chuck: I know you were joking and I am not taking it seriously, but you just gave me an opportunity to talk about my favorite subject: Wolves! I wonder if most people know that wolves do not howl at the moon (full or otherwise), they howl for various reasons and the most important are these; 1. Wolves howl because they really enjoy doing it! 2. A Lonely wolf howls because he or she is lonely and to let nearby packs know of his or her presence and innocent intent. Trespassing in a packs territories is very dangerous to the trespasser. 3. A hunting pack howls to keep in touch with one another's location and to warn other, strange wolves, away from their hunt. To wolves howling is a very important method of communication. Wolves only "bark" when playing, and have a really large repertoire of other sounds. Playing cubs really make a lot of joyous noises. Wolves are extremely intelligent and are the most compassionate and loving creatures I have ever encountered, and I have had dealings with most Mammals. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 05:45:34 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 22:45:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604054534.006c01dc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Clean up At 12:44 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960603075859.006acc80@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>If Theosophy is to have a future, we have to >>clean up our past, > > ... and our present? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: It seems to me that we must clean up our past, so that we can see clearly what needs to be "cleaned up" in our present. It seems to me that simply rearranging the present while ignoring the past is like sweeping the dust under the carpet. Without the past there is no present, and if the present is to be made better than it is, it cannot happen without acknowledging the things that have accrued from the past that may be hindering or obstructing the present. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 05:51:19 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 22:51:19 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604055119.006b17ec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Intelligence Tests At 12:49 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960603063653.006cc3e0@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>Now as to intelligence tests? Most academics in the field of education >>consider them to be a very poor indicator of intelligence at all. > >O Shit! That's me blown out of the water again! > >Alan @-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > As a matter of fact Alan, those self-same intelligence tests, applied in a similar fashion to that which Bjorn discusses, also "prove" that the inmates of most prisons are more intelligent than the general population, and even more embarrassing to Mensa; the inmates of most insane asylums are very significantly "more intelligent" than the normal population. Someday, perhaps, the educational-psychological establishments will work out a methodology to: 1st. Define intelligence (that's pretty well accomplished). 2nd: Not measure it but evaluate it. Until that is accomplished, I.Q. is just one bit of information to add to the data-bank, but it's really meaningless in making comparisons between people. "Rough guide" yes, "accurate chart" no! alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 06:06:02 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:06:02 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604060602.006cbf80@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 01:49 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 02:12 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>Both the Bishop and Annie Besant are long passed away, but their influence >>on the society, which I view as pernicious, has not. > >Alexis: >I have a special interest in Annie Besant and her writings. So far I have >seen some psychic elements of influence that came through her and that I >would agree were pernicious, but I haven't seen this in her writings. Can >you give examples? > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > Surely, however, I said that "her influence was pernicious" and her influence did not come from her writings. So then, let's start with something far more important than her writings. Bjorn, are you aware that Mrs. Besant was associated with Baron Julius D'Evola, and through him with Mussolini whom she invited to write articles for "The Herald of The East"?( He complied) If she was associated with Evola she was associated (at least peripherally) with Rene Guenon who was a major opponent of theosophy. Can this not be seen as "pernicious"? Secondly; it is my belief that in her role as "Outer Head" of the Esoteric Section, she set in motion an element that is in the process of dooming the theosophical movement. Now, as to her writings: How familiar with the work of Charles W. Leadbeater are you? I would suggest that you read his work and her work in a comparative manner and see if you can actually tell when Leadbeater leaves off and Mrs. Besant becomes original. The only writings of Mrs. Besant which I believe to be original with her were her political books, tracts,editorials, and pamphlets. Here a personality other than Leadbeater's shines through. Mrs. Besant, although I believe her to be a totalitarian, was a brilliant politician. It was allowing her name and prestige to be attached to books I very much doubt she actually wrote herself, that is pernicious. Actually Leadbeater's books are better written as they, at least,no matter whether they are valid or not, are distinctly original and much the better written. Thirdly: She could, but didn't prevent the Krishnamurti Debacle. That is the most pernicious of all. alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 06:09:12 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:09:12 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604060912.006b17d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Contributions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS At 01:51 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 07:11 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>As one Adept said "Ingratitude is not one of our vices,", let us ponder over >>what AB and CWL have contributed to Theosophy and TS. > >Yes, that is a very good starting point. Then, coming from that perspective >we can also learn from their mistakes, so they do not have to be >perpetuated. Let us have TRUTH, but not without compassion. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >That's certainly an excellent point. alexis dolgorukii From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Jun 4 06:03:41 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:03:41 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun (by way of blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)) Message-Id: <199606040603.XAA22581@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Look at Martin Euser's updated FAQ on Spiritual & Newage resources for newcomers I reproduce below Martin's FAQ which I just happened to stumble across a few minutes ago. Martin, why didn't you tell us about this! See his references to Theos-l and alt.theosophy and to TI. Daniel >http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@7902@talk%2ereligion%2enewage > Spiritual & Newage resources FAQ for newcomers > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From Martin Euser > Organization EuroNet Internet > Date 2 Jun 1996 12:25:17 GMT > Newsgroups talk.religion.newage > Message-ID <4os17d$f8u@news.euro.net> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > The purpose of this document is to point the way to newcomers on Usenet > to Internet resources concerning religion, spirituality > (in a broad sense) and connected issues. > If anyone can add to this info, please mail to: > > euser@euronet.nl > > Please include a short characteristic of the resource > you want to have included in this FAQ. > > > What's New in this FAQ (June, 1996) > ------------------------------------ > > > Newsgroups > > There's a new newsgroup, alt.theosophy , dedicated to a new approach > to this old philosophy (theosophy). Psychic & noetic experiences will be > discussed and related to theosophical, newage and psychological concepts. > Old terminology may well be replaced by new one, more up to date. > Syntheses will be sought, proposed and established. > Independant research into psychic/noetic realms by individuals is encouraged. > > A variety of theosophists, some of them psychics, including a shaman will be > present shortly on this forum to give their outspoken views. > (Advice can be offered to those with experiences that have > frightened them or that they wonder about. ) > > > TIP > > Getting access to usenet groups your site doesn't provide for: > > did you know that you can use Digital's Altavista searchengine > as a Newsgroup-reader? Search for a group, say, in the alt. hierarchy, > (usenet search rather then world wide web search) and you can > read articles, post one and reply. Easy and quick. Also useful for a search > on what a specific person has posted in several newsgroups.. > > Point your browser to: http://www.altavista.digital.com > > > > > > The Web: > > > o In the psychological-emotional realm there's work being done by a famous > psychic, Earl Gordon Curley, whose work on the '21 emotions exercise' > seems to have had quite a success. > See http://www.asgo.net/~psychic/ > > > o Theosophy International (TI) consists of a group of theosophists > dedicated to a renewal of theosophy. Terminology, psychic/noetic > experiences, alternative interpretations of teachings, establishing > new syntheses are among its interests. > > www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > E-mail: ti@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. Alan Bain) > (See also newsgroup alt.theosophy) > > > > Mailing list: > > name: with*miracle e-gathering > Listowner: tjoslin@magpage.com (theodore joslin) > [contact to receive full mision statement or further info] > > group focus: with*miracle has been established to create a > peaceful and open environment to discuss personal views and > experiences of spirituality. all faiths are welcomed, that we may > learn from the diversity of perspectives and see that the spirit > works in infinite ways. The name "with miracle" reflects my [tj] belief > that we are always in the presence of the miracle of being alive > in a living universe. > > subscription address: listserver@del.net > subscription command: join with-miracle > > > > (End of what's New) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 1. GENERAL NEWAGE INFO, SITES & RESOURCES: > > > WWW-sites (short description included): > ---------- > > o The OMNet home page has moved to: > > http://www.portal.com/~tyagi/om.html > > The new WWW-mage's guide is available at: > > http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/magi.html > > > The OMNet gives you access to the Mage's guide , > OMiNous Newsletters and to other info about the work they're doing. > > You can download the old Mage's Guide to the Internet ( version 2.0) > or have a look at the new online WWW-Mage's guide compiled by Tyagi Nagasiva. These guides describe many resources ( mystical > and occult documents & groups on Internet, including WWW-sites, > Mailing Lists, FTP-sites, Telnet Mystical Links, BBSs, Newsgroups, > Electronic Guides, etc.) > > > An OMiNous newsletter containing information about resources within the Internet esoteric and spiritual communities is available at: > > txt://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/magick/OMNet/omin1.06 > > or > > txt://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/OMNet/omin/omin1.06 > > Look there for new issues as well > ------------------------------------------------- > > > o www.newageinfo.com/res/welcome.htm > Resources MASTERINDEX for New Age sites > see also www.newageinfo.com/res/newage.htm > > > o www1.usa1.com/~salemctr/center1.html > New Age FAQs > > o www1.usa1.com/~caa/newage.html > New Age vs New Thought Movement > > o www.sedona.net/nen/nhne > New heaven new earth website; a good place to start. > > o www.well.com > A site with a good portion New Age > > o www.sun-angel.com > www.sun-angel.com/noosphere/noosphere.html > > o www.spdcc.com/home/newage/sub-newage.html > New Age journal > www.spdcc.com/home/newage/otherlnk.html > Digital therapist.. > > o www.kei.com/homepages/mkapor > Mitch Kapor's homepage. Internet and New Age. > (co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) > > > o www.euro.net/5thworld/mystic/ > > > > > 2. BRIDGES, SYNTHESES, INTERNETWORKING > > > > o http://rain.org/~origin/ > > This site (the Origin network) combines science, humanistic philosophy, > and the spiritual insights of every culture, in a multi-faceted > dialogue that is intended to conduct the "search for truth" in the > context of the entire Internet. The objective of the network is to build > relationships-- between people, ideas, cultural groups, philosophical > and religious traditions-- and to help transform global society > gradually as the composite wisdom of global culture is cooperatively > organized by network participants and radiated across the world. > The associated Bridge-l mailing list is an important part of this network. > The world-scripture project (and book) can also be found here (see below). > > o The Internet Interfaith Consortium (IIC), dedicated to promoting > interreligious dialogue, has an interesting WWW site with comparitive > fragments of World Scriptures. > > See: http://rain.org/~origin/ws.html > > IIC has compiled a cooperative catalogue, available at: > > http://rain.org/~origin/iic.html > > > 0 Web-site for the conference on the 'ideal society': > http://rain.org/~origin/is.html > > > 0 Interfaith working group: > http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/religion/orgs/iwg/iwg.html > (Chris Purdom) > > > > 0 School of Wisdom WWW-site > > http://www.webcom.com/~metanoic/wisdom/ > > holistic systhesis of science/religion; fractals & chaos theory; > esoteric music; enneagram; & much more. > This site has a large collection of search-engines. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 3. TOPICS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER: > > > ARE-Press > http://www.itribe.net/are/ > Writings of Edgar Cayce > > ASATRU > http://io.com/user/mimir/asatru.html > > > ASTROLOGY > > o www.sentex.net/~aquarius/update.html > Astrology and classical music; site has soundsamples > > o www.bdd.com/horo1/bddhoro1.cgi/horo > > > o See also Spirit-WWW (Comprehensive site) > > > ATHEISM > > o Web site that offers textual sources for examining atheism > in both the traditional anti-theist and newer ways: > > http://www.chattanooga.net/~tpkunesh/atheism.f/relaths.htm > -= a Guide for the Complete Atheist =- > a brief compilation of sources according to Christianity, > classical atheists, liberation theology, and religious atheists > > tom kunesh > > > BUDDHISM > > > o Tibetan Buddhism - transcripts from Dzoghen meetings by Lama Surya Das > in Cambridge, MA. Teachings in a modern setting: > http://www.kei.com/homepages/surya > > o coombs.anu.edu.au:80/WWWVL-Buddhism.html > The site where all Buddhistic texts are being collected, > studied and made accessible for laymen and professionals > see also coombs.anu.edu.au > > > > > CLASSICAL STUFF > > o A serious page with links to a huge number of sites regarding > classical stuff: > http://www.ucd.ie/~sspence/classics.html > > > > COMPREHENSIVE SITES (RELIGION, SPIRITUALITY, NEWAGE, ETC.) > > o Spirit-WWW (maintained by Rene' Mueller) > > Description: this site has many topics about spiritual issues. > Examples: Astrology, Theosophy, Reincarnation, Gnosis, Veda & Dharma, > Yoga Paths, Lightwork, Healing Methods, etc. > > A calendar of spiritual events, conferences, etc. can be found here > and is regularly updated. > > Also, you can get access here to newsgroups from the alt. hierarchy > not available on your site. > > How to reach: the universal resource locator (URL) is: > > http://zeta.cs.adfa.oz.au/Spirit.html > (this is the Australian site) > > http://www.protree.com/Spirit.html > (USA) > > http://www.spiritweb.org/ > (main site;USA) > > http://www.linknet.it/Spirit/ > (Italy) > > -------------------------------- > > (ALEISTER) CROWLEY, MAGICK, ETC. > > http:// www.winternet.com/~robin > http://www.lsi.usp.br/usp/rod/text/aleister_crowley.html > > ECKANKAR > http://www.eckankar.org > > > GNOSIS > > http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/ > http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/hotlist/hotlist.htm > http://www.clark.net/pub/murple/gnostic.html > http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/hotlist/hermet.html > > > HERMETIC TEXTS > > o The texts of the Corpus Hermeticum are being made available > on the web--The URL is > http://www.speakeasy.org/~mimir/caduceus/hermetica/index.html > > > KABBALAH > > http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/ > Colin's Hermetic Kabbalah Page > > http://www.webcom.com/~hermit/page/sefer.html > The Sefer Yetzirah > > http://fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de:8080/~cantsin/maimon.html > Maimonides > > > MAGICK/OCCULT WWW-sites: > > http://www.tezcat.com/~wednsday/magick.html > http://matrix.eden.com/11/eden/users/jher/occult > http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/sk4p/occult/occult > > http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/magick.html > All kind of links to magick, alchemy, qabala/Kabalah,mysticism, > old groups, new groups, etc. > > http://www.uib.no/wolf/zoo/bjorn/occult.html > (in the magick directory you can find a bulletin board for exchange of information and questions, etc.) > > Anonymous FTP-sites with files relating to magick and occultism: > > ftp.lysator.liu.se > > Directory: /pub/magick/ > Subdirectories: Alchemy/; Beginner/; Books/; Chaos/; Community/; > Consciousness/; Enochian/; General/ ; Golden_Dawn/; Mysticism/; > Necronomicon/; Net/; Ordo_templi_orientis/; Orgone_committee/; > Qabalah/; Ritual/; and more > > ----------------- > > nic.funet.fi > > subdirectory /pub/doc/occult/magick > directory /pub/magick has many subdirectories > > ---------------- > > > nic.funet.fi/pub/doc/religion/occult > ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/magick > ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/religion/neopagan > wiretap.spies.com/Library/Fringe/Occult > imageek.york.cuny.edu/pub > > > alamut.topy.org/pub/alamut/topy > ftp.netcom.com/pub/ffunch/spirevol.html > ftp.netcom.com/pub/pa/pali151 > ftp.netcom.com/pub/Sh/Shub > ftp.portal.com/pub/ss/usenet > ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/alt.magick.gems > ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/equinox > ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/magick > ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/omnet > ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/programs > > > The following newsgroups may be of interest as well: > > alt.magick > alt.magick.chaos > alt.magick.sex > alt.magick.serious > alt.magick.tyagi > alt.magick.ethics > alt.pagan > alt.religion.wicca > alt.tarot > alt.mythology > alt.religion.shamanism > soc.religion.shamanism > > --------------------------------------------- > > MEDITATION > > o Spiritual unfoldment meditation web site at : > > http://www.cityscape.co.uk/users/ea80/fisu.htm > > fisu@cityscape.co.uk Rajesh Ananda at Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment > > > o The Third Circle Web Site: > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/WEagle/ > > Instructions and examples of simple but powerful meditations. > The web site contains a section on the philosophy of TTC. > The Third Circle (TTC) is because you are your own Master. > An important concept is that of Self Source of Authority (SSOA). > > > (AVATAR) MEHER BABA > > o The Avatar Meher Baba home page is available on the WWW at URL: > http://www.oslonett.no/home/erics/index.html > > It is maintained by Eric Solibakke at Oslonett public access > and has an extensive selection of essential messages as well as a > brief biography, GIFs, pilgrimage information and address lists. > A newly added Anthology offers a wide range of Spiritual teaching > and inspirational stories, including anecdotes about Perfect Masters > and saints. A collection of Spiritual poetry called "Poetry of the > HeartMind" can also be accessed. This page provides a "Quote of > the Day" service at http://www.oslonett.no/home/erics/today.html > > Another Meher Baba www-site: http://davey.sunyerie/mb/html/mb.html > > > > MISCELLANEOUS > > o "SpiritLink Services"- http://www.amug.org:80/~a220/ > > Channeled material from the Pleiadians, Astrology, Reincarnation, > Sacred Geometry coloring book, Goddess Awakening Breathwork, Island > Nation, Community and more. > > > > MYTHOLOGY > > http://www.io.org/~untangle/mythtext.html > A collection of FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) from around the Internet. > The collection deals with various mythological topics, the mythologies of > various cultures, and with some of the mythology-related newsgroups and listservs on the Net. > Myths and Sacred scriptures (Bible,Koran), Theogony (Hesiod), Thousand and > a night (Arabic tales), etc. > > > NATURE, MOTHER EARTH (GAIA), RECONNECTION > > o http://www.pacificrim.net/~nature/ > > This site is dedicated to Project NatureConnect, > an activity of the University of Global Education. > Dr. Cohen [mjcohen@aol.com] has done much work on the area > of teaching people to reconnect to nature and spirituality. > > > > > PAGANISM > > http://www.lysator.liu.se/ftp/pub/religion/neopagan > http://www.computel.com/~fireyes/pagan/pagan.html > http://www.uwyo.edu/cte/Pagan.html > http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/paganlink/plhome.html > http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/paganlink/netstuff/pagan_net.html > > http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/paganlink/netstuff/paganwww.html > (Pagan and occult sites) > > > PROJECTS: > > Gutenberg > > Many text files on spirituality, e.g. Myths and Legends of the Sioux > > > If you have an FTP program (or emulator), please > FTP directly to the Project Gutenberg archives: > [Mac users, do NOT point and click. . .type] > > ftp mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu > login: anonymous > password: your@login > cd etext/etext90 through /etext95 > or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more information] > dir [to see files] > get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files] > GET INDEX?00.GUT > for a list of books > and GET NEW GUT for general information > and MGET GUT* for newsletters. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > PYTHAGORAS > http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/Mage/pythagoreans.html > > QABBALAH > > o Qabbalah WWW site. > http://kether.sephiroth.org/vtol/ > > > > > RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY > > Here follow some more links without further description: > (not all verified on accuracy; In addition, websites move frequently > to other locations; often there's a note on the old address that shows you > the new location's address) > > http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/ > Society and Culture:Religion [note, this URL seems to have changed] > > http://www.sedona.net > > Sun Angel Innovations http://www.sun-angel.com/ > > Unifying Fields Foundation http://www.sun-angel.com/uff/ > > > http://www.digital.com/gnn/wic/hum.toc.html#relig > > http://galaxy.einet.net/galaxy/Arts-and-Humanities/Religion.html > > http://galaxy.einet.net/galaxy/Community/Religion.html > > http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dth3maf/gresham.html > > > http://www.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/~amueller/religion/ > > http://akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo/Society_and_Culture/Religion/ > > http://www.einet.net/GJ/religion.html > > http://www.matisse.net/~peregrin/ > > > > ftp://panda1.uottawa.ca/pub/religion/ > > gopher://cwis.usc.edu:70/11/Other_Gophers_and_Information_Resources/ > Gophers_by_Subject/Gopher_Jewels/acadamic/religion/Religion > > (the above all on one line) > > gopher://vega.lib.ncsu.edu:70/11/library/stacks/Alex/Browse%20by%20 > Subject%3A%20Religion > > (all on one line) > > gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/11/global/phil > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > SAI BABA > > o contact sites for Sri Sathya Sai Baba: > > Sites on the Net favoring or critiquing Sri Sathya Sai Baba: > http://www.inside-info.co.uk/BABA/saibaba.htm > http://www.isc.tamu.edu/%7Emsr/hindu/sai/sai.html > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~raghavan/sai.html > http://www.afn.org/~afn24770 > http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~hug > http://www.chem.uottawa.ca/ravi/ravi.html > http://www.tamu.edu:8000/~ggr4499/ > http://pc1502.geographie.uni-regensburg.de/html/miracle.htm (sevaral) > http://www.liv.ac.uk/~mhbarker/saibaba2.html > http://www.stat.unipd.it/h2000/cicap/saibaba.html > Usenet: newsgroup Soc.culture.indian, (see the thread entitled > SANDEHA NIVARINI SATHYA SAI BABA DISSOLVING DOUBTS) > > Further details available from Bon_Giovanni@gaianet.net > http://www.inside-info.co.uk/BABA/bon.htm > > > SEDONA-net > http://www.sedona.net > > > SHAMANISM > http://demon.co.uk/drci/shamen/shamanism/shamanism.html > > Shamanistic healing with Don Pedro: > http://www.prgone.com/bus/dpedro > > > > SWEDENBORG > http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/Swedenborg.html (old URL) > The prefered Swedenborg URL is now: > http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ES/ > > > > SUFI SITES > > o http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/sufi.mystica.html > > > TAROT > ftp.netcom.com/pub/bota > (tarot & qabbalah) > http://www.iii.net/users/dtking/tarot.html > > > > THEOSOPHY > > o Theosophy-WWW (maintained by Paul Gillingwater) > > Description: this site is dedicated to theosophical info mainly, > though some other topics are also included like OBE > and scientific work (chaos theory). It contains also > some links to Zen and Newage-material. > > Examples: The seven jewels of wisdom; the psychological key to man; > basic theosophical teachings; history of theosophy; > Windows help-file about theosophy. Some of these articles > are duplicated on Spirit-WWW. > > How to reach: > > http://actrix.gen.nz/users/paul/theos.html > > > > Bradford Theosophical Society: > http://www.brad.ac.uk/%7Eatma/theosoc.html > > General Information on The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) > can be found at: http://user.aol.com/tstec/hmpage/tsintro.htm > > > Another Theosophical society: > http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TS.html > > > > > > Introduction to the theosophy discussion-list: > http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/theos-l.html > > USERS HOMEPAGES/MISCELLANEOUS > > o Owen Thomas's homepage: > http://www.cts.com/browse/othomas0 > > > VOODOO > > http://www.nando.net/prof/caribe/voodoo.html > > > > WICCA > > http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~crf8a/wicca.html > http://www.eden.com/~aggedor/wicca.html > > > > > ZEN > > http://oac11.hsc.uth.tmc.edu/zen/index.html > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 4. MAILING LISTS > ------------- > > > NHNE. > > "NewHeavenNewEarth is a spontaneous, grass-roots network of people who > believe that a divine plan is unfolding in the earth. Our primary goal is > to identify, understand and manifest this plan as best we can. > > "We also believe that our planet is passing through a time of profound > change. With this in mind, our secondary goal is to create a global > community of like-minded people that can safely pass through whatever > changes may come our way and help give birth to a new way of life on our > planet. > > "NewHeavenNewEarth > P.O. Box 10627 / Sedona / AZ / 86339-8627 > The Internet: nhne@sedona.net / America Online: NHNE > WWW: http://www.sedona.net/nen/nhne" > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Sacred Geometry and Sacred Architecture. > It is part of a larger listserv that incorporates interests > in sustainable agriculture and Permaculture landscape design. > > Some topics to be covered include SACRED GEOMETRY: > > History and philosophy, natural proportion, patterns, latent geometry > Platonic solids, ratio and proportion, Pythagoras, Fibonacci, phi, > golden section ; links between geometry, music, architecture > Neo-Platonic revival; deco-era industrial design revival > > Sacred architecture : ancient and modern buildings, constructions, etc. > > Many tangent topics. > > To SUBSCRIBE, send e-mail to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu with the message: > subscribe sustag-principles > > The Almanac System Administrator for NCCES > e-mail: > > An archive is available at sunsite.unc.edu > Access to this is possible by ftp, ftpmail, gopher and > www. > For any questions or requests about the archives, please address: > Lawrence F. London, Jr. - london@sunSITE.unc.edu > (or try Netsearch to locate archives; keyword: sacred geometry) > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > There is a special mailing list that will provide a daily > spiritual/metaphysical quote. One can subscribe to it by sending a > message with the word "subscribe" in the *subject* line to > > quotes-request@sun-angel.com > > > > New mailing lists are often announced through the NEW-LIST@vm1.nodak.edu > > You can subscribe to this list by sending mail to Listserv@vm1.nodak.edu > In the body of your message put: subscribe New-list Your Name > (inserting First_name Last_name at the place of Your Name) > > You can get more info by sending mail to Listserv@vm1.nodak.edu > with the command GET NEW-LIST README in the body of the message. > > ------ > > Earth-Spirit mailing list: > > discussion-list of the interconnection of Earth-based activism > and spirituality. Holistic point of view; dialogue about finding > a common ground in spiritual motivation to protect Earth & Her children. > > The list's host is Communications for a Sustainable Future (CSF), > located at the university of Colorado at Boulder. > > subscribe: send the following message to listserv@csf.colorado.edu > > Sub Earth-Spirit Yourfirstname Yourlastname > > > coordinator: Joy Williams [ dhummer@netcom.com ] > > ----------- > > There's an Avatar Meher Baba listserver at LISTSERV@rex.sunyerie.edu > > To subscribe, send the command "SUBSCRIBE Baba" (without quotes) in the > body of an email. > > The coordinator is Joseph Stewart [STEWART@nstaff.sunyerie.edu] > > > ----------- > > The Theos-l mailing list is open for all individuals > who want to talk about spirituality, philosophy and > science and their experience of the spiritual. > Understandably, this will be in a context of the > Theosophical tradition. Nevertheless, the participants > of this list are tolerant towards all religious views. > > How to subscribe? > > Send mail to: listserv@vnet.net > Leave the subject line empty. > In the body of the message, put: > subscribe theos-l Firstname Surname > (insert your first name and last name for Firstname and Surname) > and shortly you will begin receiving mail > and some instructions on how to use the listserver. > > ------------ > > MAILING LIST: HEAL-L > > Send "info heal-l" > to promail@mb.protree.com, or > "subscribe heal-l" to promail@mb.protree.com > to join direct. > You can access the connected page of heal-l in Healing- > section of Spirit-WWW as well. > For more info E-mail to: > mblais@mblais.pdial.interpath.net > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 5. TELNET > > A new bulletin board service, including a chat service and a sophisticated > messaging system, is available at theosophy.org > Simply telnet to this site to connect to it. Lot's of interesting stuff, > including Buddhistic essays. > Recently, there has been added a web site: http://theosophy.org > > The above site is built and being maintained by independent Theosophists. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 6. SEARCH ENGINES > > 0 The Alta Vista search engine from Digital Equipment Corporation: > http://www.altavista.digital.com/ > > A gigantic database that is being updated daily. Contains information > about newsgroups articles and public web sites. I tried it and found > information I was looking for for a year! > > > > 0 Yahoo at http://www.yahoo.com/ > > Contains references to more than one million WWW-pages > The homepage contains links to newage info. A regular newage FAQ > is listed at one of these links. > > 0 Lycos at http://lycos2.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/pursuit > Millions of unique adresses > > 0 Try the popular search engine: http://www.webcrawler.com > > > 0 At CERN you can find an elegant search-service: > http://cui_www.unige.ch/meta-index.html > Contains also links to other search-engines and offers a Finger-service > to locate people's E-mail addresses. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 7. NEWSGROUPS > > > Some consciousness related newsgroups: > > alt.astrology > alt.atheism > alt.consciousness > alt.consciousness.mysticism > alt.consciousness.4th-way > alt.consciousness.near-death-exp > alt.dreams > alt.dreams.castaneda > alt.dreams.lucid > alt.evil > alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna > alt.freemasonry > alt.jyotish > > Jyotish is the name of the science which is referred to in the West > as "Vedic" or "Hindu" astrology (vedic prediction sciences). > > alt.magick.order > alt.magick.serious > alt.meditation > alt.meditation.quanyin > alt.out-of-body > alt.paranormal.channeling > alt.paranormal > alt.paranet.paranormal > alt.psychoactives > alt.philosophy.zen > alt.religion.eckankar > alt.religion.asatru > alt.religion.druid > alt.religion.gnostic > alt.religion.zoroastrianism > alt.satanism > > Remark: the original notion of 'Lucifer' is one of *lightbringer* or > lightcarrier, not an evil entity ('Satan')which it became later on > in mainstream Christianity. Man *had* to eat from the 'tree of > knowledge',ie. start developing self-consciousness in this world > and thus learn to take responsibility for his actions. > > > alt.yoga > aus.religion > clari.news.religion > misc.creativity > sci.philosophy.meta > soc.religion.eastern > talk.philosophy.misc > talk.origins > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Martin Euser | Let us be united in our common search > euser@euronet.nl | for truth > http://www.spiritweb.org/ > See: theosophy section > or http://actrix.gen.nz/users/paul/theos.html > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 04:10:40 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:10:40 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040612.AA17503@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Bjorn At 01:34 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Dear brother Bjorn, >In the Platonic way, we are here, as friends to share the knowledge and >tools we have learnt in this life and the wisdom we brought with us + the >one we are able to transmute . . . all that may be powered by the sharing >of ideas, so we do not have to rediscover everything again. Martin, I agree so totally with this. Personally I have a lot of respect for people and religious movements etc that I don't agree with and never would contemplate joining. The Mormons, for example. Many wonderful people there, with high moral standards. Or some "plain" christians. I know of such individuals that I consider far more advanced spiritually than myself, or most more spiritually "illumined" people I know. Universal brotherhood can not be built on what we know and what concepts we have, but only on compassion with all life. > >I am most interested in knowing what you have to say about what tools and >knowledge you got to share As I just posted a private email to Liesel to the group, by mistake, I am already starting. Since I did so, I'd like to say that this open heart to heart sharing is difficult when you know that you are likely to be stabbed in the back because of what you say. That's why I suggested moderation. Now that this is not an option we will see how we can do, the rules being what they are. My path is primarily karma yoga and bahkti yoga. I enjoy philosophy and metaphysical studies, too, but find that it is more meaningful for me to engage in service than to spend a lot of time discussing doctrine, including the wonderful theosophical teachings. There is so much work to do to save this planet! Meditation, of course, is very important also. I think what most of us need is a basic understanding of cosmic law and then application and experience. This is likely to help us balance karma at the fastest rate. My meditation experiences strengthen and inspire me more than anything. When I feel the Presence of the Indwelling Godhead - I AM - everything else is put into perspective, maya loses it grip on me. >and in exchange I would do the same, >and I am >sure others will chip in. If it is possible, in this group, to get a more personal perspective on the spiritual path from active and lurkers alike that would make me very happy. Your brother on the path Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 06:18:56 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:18:56 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604061856.006ab380@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Of wolves and a man. At 01:54 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 04:07 AM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >>Bjorn: I've Mastered (by love alone) a large male wolf, surely I can Master >>my own temper! > >To master ones own temper by love - I believe that to be a key to real mastery. > >>I sincerely hope so, mais que sera, sera. By the way I lived in Stockhom >>for almost two years when I was infinitely younger (the early 1950's) > >Wow, you must be ancient! I thought I am old and I was BORN in the early 50ies. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >Absolutely doddering, Bjorn, absolutely doddering! But luckily, I have inherited interesting genetics for longevity, all of my family (when we don't get murdered) live well into their ninth decade. My Mother is 90 and going very strong! Of all my relations, HPB died at the youngest age. In fact I am older than HPB when she died. The interesting thing about my temper (and it's exactly like HPB's in this regard) is it's like a summer squall...all thunder and lightning..and soon past! I never stay mad, and I never hold grudges. Wolves you know are evolutionarily some six million years old, and they are extraordinarily psychic. If you display anger in their presence they either attack (if they think they can win) or flee. In living with, and working with, a wolf (mine weighs 95 pounds) any emotion other than joy, playfulness, and love, must be not simply controlled, but entirely absent. They must also know that you can master them physically and never soubt it for a moment. My Wolf weights 95 pounds. It has been an incredible challenge and an even more incredible experience. When one is loved by a Wolf, one begins to know what love can actually be! alexis From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 04:23:33 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:23:33 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040625.AA17637@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 02:05 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Surely, however, I said that "her influence was pernicious" and her >influence did not come from her writings. So then, let's start with >something far more important than her writings. Bjorn, are you aware that >Mrs. Besant was associated with Baron Julius D'Evola, and through him with >Mussolini whom she invited to write articles for "The Herald of The East"?( >He complied) If she was associated with Evola she was associated (at least >peripherally) with Rene Guenon who was a major opponent of theosophy. Can >this not be seen as "pernicious"? I didn't know about these things and they don't seem very significant to me. But I appreciate the information. Now, as to her writings: How familiar with the work >of Charles W. Leadbeater are you? I have read some, but not all of them. I would suggest that you read his work and >her work in a comparative manner and see if you can actually tell when >Leadbeater leaves off and Mrs. Besant becomes original. This also does not seem very significant to me. Most of AB's published writings are actually edited speeches. I feel they are very genuine and convey a clear understanding of the path, balanced with true devotion. It was allowing her name and >prestige to be attached to books I very much doubt she actually wrote >herself, that is pernicious. You doubting that she wrote them hardly make them pernicious. >Thirdly: She could, but didn't prevent the Krishnamurti Debacle. That is the >most pernicious of all. This is a sad story. Her intentions were good, she thought she helped prepare a World Teacher for his service, but there was bad judgement causing tremendeous damage. As for her writings, their possible lack of originality is not, IMO, pernicious. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 06:25:27 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:25:27 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604062527.006ccb84@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 04:46 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Chuck, did you know that Ballard died 1939? How old do you think I Am? Where >did you get your "information" about Ballard from???? >In my case I know numerous people who have belonged to his movement and >left. They do not have any reason to protect him since they don't belong to >his organization, and may even not like the way it is being run. But never >have they have any complaints even remotely similar to what you are coming >up with. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >Bjorn: May I suggest that you obtain some unbiased books about the various occult movements in America? There should be enough information therein for you to make up your own mind on this subject. Making up your own mind from information you obtained on your own is far better than anything I could tell you. I assure you however, that Mr. Ballard is not too well thought of, and he did, in fact get jailed for fraud. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 06:32:44 1996 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:32:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604063244.006bddc4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: The Past At 05:07 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alexis writes: > >>...but I will also never be silenced on a subject I consider to >>be of paramount importance to the future of theosophy. If >>Theosophy is to have a future, we have to clean up our past, and >>CWL is an important part of that past. > >Here is the rub. Here we are in a theosophical discussion group >which should imply a freedom to explore theosophical subjects in >all of its aspects. The only limitation I remember reading when >I joined was that we are supposed to be considerate to others on >the list. To me, this rule means that we are not supposed to >hurl insults at each other. That is a reasonable request IMO. >But if this rule also means that we cannot discuss certain >theosophically relevant subjects if some subscribers object to >them, then we are in deep trouble. > >Over the past years, I discussed some of the issues concerning >CWL in some depth on theos-l. I did so because, like Alexis, I >believe that a frank discussion and exploration of the activities >and teachings of this man should be a legitimate topic of >discussion on theos-l, not to mention TSA. I had hoped that the >discussions would stimulate some thinking and questions among the >readers concerning the past and future direction of the TS. >After all, when the TS was formed, it was meant to be an >organization where people were brought together by their desire >to seek for truth. I think this is still a noble cause. But >today, the TS is predominately a membership which has no idea >what is going on and apparently goes to extreme efforts to avoid >knowing. There are others who live in a fantasy world of >theosophical lore about neighboring planets populated by little >green men, a "smiling" solar logos who is in charge of this >planet, and rocks that fall in love with little boys who sit on >them. The TS over the past 100 years has indeed become a >confused mess and there doesn't seem to be enough people >interested in theosophy in its original sense who want to get to >the bottom of that confusion. IMO the apathy, denial and self >imposed ignorance of the majority of the membership is more to >blame for the failure of the TS than all of the bad and/or >ineffective leaders and policies put together. After over thirty >years of fighting apathy and getting burned by those in power who >are threatened by change, I've come to the point where I fully >understand that famous line: "Frankly, Miss Scarlet, I don't give >a damn." > >But if there are two or three people on this list who are willing >to discuss CWL's effect on the TS, and this discussion is >motivated from an intellectual integrity--a desire for truth, and >they are willing to stand up to the aggressive and passive- >aggressive abuses of those who do not wish this subject to be >discussed, I would be more than happy to join in and add >considerably more information beyond what I had contributed in >the past--that is, once this topic progresses to the point where >I had last left off. > >The only weapon we have against ignorance is knowledge. > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > >Jerry| You have just stated my ideas on this subject to the "n th" degree. Your historical knowledge is probably superior to anyone's, why don't we make this a topic for open discussion, with open questions and free answers. But it can't be accomplished if people start hurling invectives. alexis dolgorukii From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 05:12:38 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 01:12:38 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040714.AA18361@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Of wolves and a man. Alexis, I find this little letter from you quite unusual, and, flavorful. Hope you don't mind that I print it out and show it to my wife. Bjorn >> >> >>Absolutely doddering, Bjorn, absolutely doddering! But luckily, I have >inherited interesting genetics for longevity, all of my family (when we >don't get murdered) live well into their ninth decade. My Mother is 90 and >going very strong! Of all my relations, HPB died at the youngest age. In >fact I am older than HPB when she died. > >The interesting thing about my temper (and it's exactly like HPB's in this >regard) is it's like a summer squall...all thunder and lightning..and soon >past! I never stay mad, and I never hold grudges. > >Wolves you know are evolutionarily some six million years old, and they are >extraordinarily psychic. If you display anger in their presence they either >attack (if they think they can win) or flee. In living with, and working >with, a wolf (mine weighs 95 pounds) any emotion other than joy, >playfulness, and love, must be not simply controlled, but entirely absent. >They must also know that you can master them physically and never soubt it >for a moment. My Wolf weights 95 pounds. It has been an incredible challenge >and an even more incredible experience. When one is loved by a Wolf, one >begins to know what love can actually be! > >alexis > > > roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 05:12:41 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 01:12:41 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606040714.AB18361@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 02:22 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >> >>Chuck, did you know that Ballard died 1939? How old do you think I Am? Where >>did you get your "information" about Ballard from???? >>In my case I know numerous people who have belonged to his movement and >>left. They do not have any reason to protect him since they don't belong to >>his organization, and may even not like the way it is being run. But never >>have they have any complaints even remotely similar to what you are coming >>up with. >> >>Bjorn >> >>roxendal@alpinet.net >> >> >>Bjorn: May I suggest that you obtain some unbiased books about the various >occult movements in America? There should be enough information therein for >you to make up your own mind on this subject. Making up your own mind from >information you obtained on your own is far better than anything I could >tell you. I assure you however, that Mr. Ballard is not too well thought of, >and he did, in fact get jailed for fraud. There was a lawsuit that they first lost but that was later overturned to their advantage. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 07:41:40 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:41:40 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604074140.006b8b6c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Heroes and heroines At 07:50 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Well, this is a start on some research, and there will possibly be other >letters. The one I posted was reproduced by the editor(s) of "The >Theosophic Voice" in 1908. This only went to three issues (in Chicago). >Most of its content was taken up with the CWL affair, his resignation >from the T.S. and later reinstatement. I have some more reading to do, >as I have the temporary loan of all three issues. > >All being well, more historical material will arrive in Bristol on >Wednesday ... > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Je t'attends! alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 07:46:43 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:46:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604074643.006db090@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant At 08:40 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss: >>I have been trying to make Theosophy practical in the sense that I >>try to apply the ideal of Universal Brotherhood to help any man(woman) or >>any other entity that I can help. So I feel there is a practical side to >>Theosophy. > > In a large sense, I agree with you completely. However, >Christians learn in Church to turn the other cheek, and to return >hate with love, and so on. Many try to put that into practice. Are >you implying that we all basically all on the same Path? Could >you tell me what the difference is, in your view, between >theosophical altruism and any other practicing Christian or >other religious person? The reason that I bring this up, Doss, is >that altruism, to me, is a given, and very first step that we all >should have learned in Church before coming into Theosophy. >I would hope that a theosophist is a cut above the average >religious person because a theosophist has Knowledge >that the Christian or Jew or Mulsim doesn't have. I guess >what I am suggesting here, is that maybe there is more to >being a practicing theosophist than merely being altruistic (?). > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >Jerry: I think that any truly good person is intrinsically altruistic and that holds true from Atheist to Zen Monk. But theosophy is more than that and less than that. It is knowledge, and understanding, and a urgently questing mind. It is a mind that seeks beyond the superficialities of religion. It is a mind that seeks! And in seeking, demonstrates rather than teaches! alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 07:53:07 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:53:07 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604075307.006d7044@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant At 08:42 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >Jerry S.: >>>... because theosophists who >>> study the literature over a long period of time become convinced >>> (falsely) that they know everything. The idea that one can understand... >>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >Doss: >> Agreed, No one can know everything. > > Its more than that, Doss. The human mind thinks >that it can, and tries very hard. If it feels incompetent, it simply >reads a bit more to try to learn faster. Its like a dog chasing >its tail. It thinks that it can catch it by simply going faster. >I know, because this is how I used to be. James Long >noted this in me, and told me that I was trying to wrap >truth up in a box tied neatly with a pretty ribbon. He pointed >out that what I was trying to do, couldn't be done, and he >suggested I stop reading and studying and instead try to >assimilate what I had already read. The truth, in short, was >already within me, if I could only see it. This pretty well changed >me around, gave me a whole new worldview, and transformed >me from a sheep to a wolf, for which I will be eternally >gratefully. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > > >You know Jerry, the more i hear about James Long, the more I "long" to have met him. He sounds like an undeservedly ignored major leader in Theosophy. His actions regarding the E.S. in his organization alone, makes me really admire him. What a shame he was limited to one of the smaller groups. alexis From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 08:21:16 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 01:21:16 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604082116.006ad1cc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 09:10 PM 6/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>cut<<<<<<< > >Have you or anybody else proven that he was NOT a real and living person? If >that has not been proven, either, then it follows that it could be entirely >possible that he WAS a real and living person, right? I mean, so far nothing >is proven, right? Bjorn: May I suggest that you read Albert Screecher's book: "The Search for the Historical Jesus", and then we can talk about this subject. I am not a Christian "near Saint" Schweitzer is. I always prefer to refer people to real experts. > >Another fact to consider is that there are many beings in our universe who >have never lived on this planet. Any number of them may be encountered, for >better or for worse, as the case may be. That is true, but one has no way of actually identifying them. The hard part for those not Shamans, is deciding what is real. > >What about your "spirits". Can they be empirically proven? I know that you >have talked about them, even on this list. Or are you testifying about >matters that are unseen (physically) and can not be empirically proven yourself? Can I be empirically proven? Yes I can. Well I am intrinsically a spirit, as are you. As a Shaman, "spirits"who are intrinsically unidentifiable, use my body and voice as a transmitter for the Cosmic harmonic. Who they are, I have no idea,although I do see them from time to time, and they are very interesting indeed. BUT that is a far cry from saying I have met the Master K.H. or The Master Jesus. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I have met several people whom I consider to be Adeptii, but they were in the flesh. Some of the spirits I work with and see may indeed be at that level but I would never presume to say so. If one is going to be an occultist, one must follow the rules of occultism. > >>My strong disapproval of Elisabeth Clair Prophet arises from my estimation >>that the woman is entirely fraudulent. The same disapproval also arises from >>a lot of reading of her printed words and they are totally unoriginal and un >>valid. My disapproval of her "disciples" arises from the fact that I find it >>inconceivable that anyone could fall for her words. > >These are almost the exact same words that were thrown at Blavatsky, >thousands of times. What you do is expressing a strong personal opinion, >which I certainly respect, but certainly no "proof". Many people have called Mme. Blavatsky a fraud, and in some instances they may be right. But reading her words one finds they are anything but superficial and banal, they may be absurd and ridiculous, but they are never banal. The theosophical writings that are banal and superficial were mostly written by Bishop Leadbeater and his many imitators, and they in fact are the basic sources for Elisabeth clair Prophets writings. > >I have also studied her printed and spoken word, as those of her >predecessor, Mark Prophet. I have meditated on the energies and >consciousness content of the material, studied their auras and so forth, and >have come to an ENTIRELY different conclusion. His name by the way, was Mark Probbert (he was her husband, not simply her predecessor). She changed it after his death to suit her purposes. This is one of the many reasons I find her extremely questionable. One of the joys of being a doddering old man is that I can say I met him once or twice. I liked him and thought he was a valid psychic. I do not think she is. i don't think he thought she was either. > > >Well, just like people fell for HPB they fall for ECP. And usually those who >fall for her are intelligent people and independent thinkers. But you see Bjorn, I was attracted to theosophy by three little things, the three objects, and by one big thing, the motto: "There's No Religion Higher Than Truth". I didn't "fall for HPB" or "CWL' or anyone. I was much attracted by "Isis Unveiled", but I am regarded as at least neo-heretical by many theosophists for my views on "The Secret Doctrine" > >The only source where much of the teachings of this movement is to be found >in a concentrated form is in the book "Climb the Highest Mountain". To me it >seems hard to believe that this book (and others) can be perceived as >"banal" or "superficial". IMO it is very much in the theosophic tradition >and similar in vibration. I hope nobody on this list is even considering >judging this matter based on either my or Alexis views, though. It is easy >enough to check out for anyone who like to do so. Here are some web pages >for a starter, including a short book list: > >http://www.tsl.org/ Oh I couldn't agree more, don't ever think I want anyone to take my word for anything. Read her words by all means. I trust the judgement of most people on this list. > >>You have been entirely "up front" and honest about your point of view, I >>could do no other than be equally frank and honest in my response. I have no >>animosity toward you are any of the people in the "I Am Movement" or the >>"Church Universal and Triumphant" but i do have a good deal of pity. > >How do you show this "pity"? I mean how are you going to show me pity, now, >seeing that I believe in these things? Bjorn: "Pity" is something one feels, it cannot be demonstrated. What it means is that I feel "sorry" for you. There are better things, I believe, for one to believe in. But it is your choice. You will learn differently in time. You are relatively young yet. > >Bjorn >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >In friendship alexis dolgorukii From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 08:28:32 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 01:28:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604082832.006a60ec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re: CWL At 01:18 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >less if he did what he said . . . the point is he brought me to the New >Acropolis and then to the Theosophical Society and I am still searching. >Books and influence like that is better that a bad TV program, IMHO. > > >Martin Leiderman, a Theosophist > > > >Martin: You have brought up a really fascinating subject. Please do tell us about "The New Acropolis", some of us are really interested as we have heard the name of that group often in varying contexts, but none of us know anything about it. Please enlighten us. alexis dolgorukii From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 4 08:59:41 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 03:59:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: re: CWL In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Martin Leiderman wrote: > I always ask myself, if I go to India and select one individual to be the > World Teacher and I choose one like Krishnaji . . . alas! what are the > odds??? . . . what do you think Ramadoss, my brother. > > Martin Leiderman, a Theosophist You have brought a very interesting question. Let me add that when Krishnaji was "discovered" he was a very puny and not a bright looking eleven year old. What are the odds of chosing such a boy and who never passed a single examination and never had a formal educational certificate and who turns out to be a world renowned speaker? Go to any bookstore and look at New Age shelves and I find that his books number 10:1 or more compared to Theosophy books. After his "Truth is a pathless land" statement, there has never been any other Theosophical Leader who has affected more people in the world than him. Many of the current members of TS, including myself, have been affected by his books, videos and audios. ...With friendship....Ramadoss From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Tue Jun 4 09:57:06 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 09:54:06 -0300 From: Subject: Reincarnation Priority: normal Message-Id: <11CE7032FA@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Alexis Dolgorukii said: "Reincarnation was rejected as Christian doctrine after The Council of Constantinople even though some of the Father's of the Church, ie. Clemens Alexandrinus, ad argued in it's favour". I already send a message with some documents from Council of Constantinople that clearly states that the subject of condenmnation was the doctrine of pre-existence of souls, never reincarnation. This concept, pre existence of soul was particularly developed in Alexandria school at the time of Origen. At this message I send some parts of Origen'work that explain such subject. Observe that Origen never speak of reincarnation but pre existence of souls. The file can be fopund in http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers in file ECF04.TXT ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. BOOK III.CHAP. I.--ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL,[2] WITH AN EXPLANATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THOSE STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE WHICH APPEAR TO NULLIFY IT. "in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work."[4] He, accordingly, who purges himself, is made a vessel unto honour, while he who has disdained to cleanse himself from his impurity is made a vessel unto dishonour. From such declarations, in my opinion, the cause of our actions can in no degree be referred to the Creator. For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonour; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honour, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonour. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honour or dishonour. Therefore every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honour or one unto dishonour. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all piety, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God either to honour or to dishonour, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and (believe) that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother. Abrantes From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Jun 4 14:34:57 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:34:57 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606041434.HAA28341@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: All "out of the body" experiences are NOTHING BUT hallucinations?? On alt.eckankar I found the following posting by Dr. Mike Mueckler (biologist, I believe) who was once a member of the Eckankar group, who also has had many, many out-of-body experiences himself over the course of his life, and who as you will see in the post below, is now totally skeptical that such "soul traveling" is really real. Of course, I don't agree with his *extreme* position. I thought Alexis, Jerry S., JRC and others might be interested with the "attitude" displayed by Dr. Mueckler towards "psychic experiences." Far too many scientists have this attitude toward the psychic and this was part of what I was trying to convey to Alexis in one of my postings a month or two ago. Daniel > Date: 4 Jun 1996 03:41:56 GMT > From: mike@cellbio.wustl > Subject: Re: Soul Travel: Subjective or Objective? In article <19960603103233.aaaa0007F@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>, Joseph Polanik wrote: > you are obviously ignoring cases where people report, as part of their > so-called Near-Death Experience, details of the resucitation procedure > that occurred after the body became inert (or 'temporarily dead'). In > the same vein are cases where the experiencer left the immediate > vicinity of the body and noticed something unusual which was > incorporated into the report and later verified by others. > > in your many years of sifting thru the evidence you surely came across > cases such as this. perhaps you felt that this evidence didn't meet your > standards as to type, quality or quantity. To a trained observer, this is not evidence, it is closer to fable, story telling or wishful thinking. People lie, exaggerate, bend the truth, and convince themselves of things that never happened. There are perfectly rational explanations for all of these cases when one takes the reality of human fallibility into consideration. When the heart stops beating, the brain continues to function for many minutes. If it didn't the people really would be dead and would not be capable of being resuscitated. Visual and auditory sensory inputs during this state can be processed and translated into dream like images. Nothing mysterious about it at all. We know that the perception of disembodiment can be induced by sensory deprivation and electrical stimulation. Hypoxia probably induces a similar state under the right circumstances. Trivial. These events are real alright--lucid dreams and hallucinations--they have been reproduced in the laboratory by electrical probing, sensory deprivation, drugs, and by those who can induce lucid dreams. > so we are left with the supposed 'fact' that tests conducted in the > laboratory have yielded meagre results. if this is indeed a fact > it would invite the evaluation of the our standards and expectations as > indicated above. I love this. Perhaps I will use it for our next manuscript that is criticized by reviewers--Your standards of proof are too high! What do you want, real evidence or something? Of course the military found no evidence for remote viewing, because it is nothing but dreaming. That says it all. If it were real, you can bet your life that it would be exploited in business and by the military. > stimulating certain areas of the brain can produce reports of phenomena > similar to phenomena reported in OBE reports. even assuming the stimulus > is generating a new experience rather than evoking a memory of an old > one, these brain probing experiments don't prove as much as you seem to > think. They provide a perfectly rational, mundane explanation for a phenomenon I am all too familiar with, both subjectively and objectively. The evidence is overwhelming that these are nothing but dreams. That is obvious to anyone who has truly explored it first-hand with a true scientific attitude. > > Ah! there *is* a recurring phenomenology --- when it suits you to > recognize it. Again, well known to those who have thoroughly explored this state. Trivial. If you are obsessed with eck masters before you fall asleep, what are you likely to dream of, chopped liver? Use your head. > > and Twitchell's proclaimed experiences have none of these. > > this is a wild claim for which you have provided no support. suppose you > supply us with references to material which you think illustrates the > recurring phenomenology and with references to material which you think > shows that Paul's 'proclaimed experiences have none of these.' You can read Monroe's first book and several of the faq's available on the net on astral projection to get a feel for some of the recurrent themes. For example, the vibratory state accompaned by paralysis--a well known phenomenon to sleep researchers called sleep paralysis that accompanies rapid eye movement dreaming--exactly what you would predict would occur during a lucid dream. Others are right out of the older projection literature (silver cords) and are experienced only by people who are familiar with that literature, i.e., they experience exactly what they expect to experience--that's what lucid dreaming is all about. ......... From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 4 15:39:33 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:39:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960604113932_210218507@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Quest (to Doss) Doss, It was not so much that the writings about theosophy in the Quest were difficult to read so much as that there were hardly any writings about theosophy in the Quest. But it was good for lining the cat box. Chuck MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 4 17:20:01 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:20:01 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960604122219.22f78a06@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Quest (to Doss) At 11:39 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, >It was not so much that the writings about theosophy in the Quest were >difficult to read so much as that there were hardly any writings about >theosophy in the Quest. >But it was good for lining the cat box. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > Chuck: You are very right about Quest. When Dorothy was the President, I even requested that Quest be not sent to me and reduce my annual dues and promised that the savings will be spent in the local lodge activities. Nothing happened and the Quest continued to come. ..doss From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 17:27:47 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 10:27:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604172747.006de898@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 02:22 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >At 02:05 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>Surely, however, I said that "her influence was pernicious" and her >>influence did not come from her writings. So then, let's start with >>something far more important than her writings. Bjorn, are you aware that >>Mrs. Besant was associated with Baron Julius D'Evola, and through him with >>Mussolini whom she invited to write articles for "The Herald of The East"?( >>He complied) If she was associated with Evola she was associated (at least >>peripherally) with Rene Guenon who was a major opponent of theosophy. Can >>this not be seen as "pernicious"? > >I didn't know about these things and they don't seem very significant to me. >But I appreciate the information. They "don't seem very significant to you? Bjorn I know you were born after world war II, but to those of us who weren't, the very idea of someone being associated with either Mussolini or his pal Hitler, is VERY significant indeed. Julius d'Evola was charged as a war criminal after that war. The only reason that he wasn't either executed or imprisoned was because, unlike the fascists, the allies didn't think it worth the trouble to execute or imprison philosophers with powerful French friends. > > Now, as to her writings: How familiar with the work >>of Charles W. Leadbeater are you? > >I have read some, but not all of them. > >I would suggest that you read his work and >>her work in a comparative manner and see if you can actually tell when >>Leadbeater leaves off and Mrs. Besant becomes original. > >This also does not seem very significant to me. Most of AB's published >writings are actually edited speeches. I feel they are very genuine and >convey a clear understanding of the path, balanced with true devotion. > > It was allowing her name and >>prestige to be attached to books I very much doubt she actually wrote >>herself, that is pernicious. > >You doubting that she wrote them hardly make them pernicious. > >>Thirdly: She could, but didn't prevent the Krishnamurti Debacle. That is the >>most pernicious of all. > >This is a sad story. Her intentions were good, she thought she helped >prepare a World Teacher for his service, but there was bad judgement causing >tremendeous damage. > >As for her writings, their possible lack of originality is not, IMO, pernicious. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > Plagiarism is definitely pernicious, but I don't think Besant was a plagiarist. I think she allowed Leadbeater to put things together in her name, and that's fraudulent, and fraud is pernicious. Leadbeater also wrote things and put them out under Krishnamurti's name (something Krishnamurti bitterly resented). But obviously you and I will never have a meeting of the minds on this subject so I will not discuss it further. You are a devtionalist and I am a rationalist so perhaps it's impossible. alexis dolgorukii > From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 17:31:44 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 10:31:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604173144.006d2fdc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Of wolves and a man. At 03:13 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis, I find this little letter from you quite unusual, and, flavorful. >Hope you don't mind that I print it out and show it to my wife. > >Bjorn Why would I possibly object? alexis >>> >>> >>>Absolutely doddering, Bjorn, absolutely doddering! But luckily, I have >>inherited interesting genetics for longevity, all of my family (when we >>don't get murdered) live well into their ninth decade. My Mother is 90 and >>going very strong! Of all my relations, HPB died at the youngest age. In >>fact I am older than HPB when she died. >> >>The interesting thing about my temper (and it's exactly like HPB's in this >>regard) is it's like a summer squall...all thunder and lightning..and soon >>past! I never stay mad, and I never hold grudges. >> >>Wolves you know are evolutionarily some six million years old, and they are >>extraordinarily psychic. If you display anger in their presence they either >>attack (if they think they can win) or flee. In living with, and working >>with, a wolf (mine weighs 95 pounds) any emotion other than joy, >>playfulness, and love, must be not simply controlled, but entirely absent. >>They must also know that you can master them physically and never soubt it >>for a moment. My Wolf weights 95 pounds. It has been an incredible challenge >>and an even more incredible experience. When one is loved by a Wolf, one >>begins to know what love can actually be! >> >>alexis >> >> >> >roxendal@alpinet.net > > > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Jun 4 18:20:25 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:20:25 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606041820.AA05269@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: re CWL Martin Liederman writes: >On the CWL subject, my experience is that many new people come >to our Lodge (Spanish speaking) because they read first CWL, and >they are fascinated by it. >If CWL's effect on people is one of mystery and wonder, and push >them to cross tamas or inertia to get involve in spirituality . >. . I think is great. > >In my case, I was a teenager when I read The Third Eye, by L. >Rampa. I care less if he did what he said . . . the point is he >brought me to the New Acropolis and then to the Theosophical >Society and I am still searching. Books and influence like >that is better that a bad TV program, IMHO. My experience was much like yours. But as a teenager it was CWL's MAN VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE that totally fascinated me. It was the first time I had ever seen a book that discussed clairvoyance. When I was a child, my older sister used to mock me when I spoke of my own experiences, so I quickly learned to keep these things to myself. But here was a book on the subject...and everything was so familiar.... Further study brought me to other subjects. I became serious about astrology (a subject that CWL did not believe in) which led me to an interest in astronomy. But astronomy confused me at first because it was so different from Jinarajadasa's astronomy in FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THEOSOPHY. Soon I figured out that CJ and CWL's science was simply out of date. Astronomy was a very different science after 1925 when we figured out that some of those nebulas were really galaxies like the one we live in. Astronomy led me to a fascination with other sciences. By 1970 I began to seriously study THE SECRET DOCTRINE. I had the book for years but it was too dense for me to read, and my readings of CWL did not help me to understand it any better. In the 60's Geoffrey Barborka helped when he convinced me to regard CWL's theosophy and HPB's as two different systems. I finally applied that lesson and went further. I began to regard every theosophical book as an individual understanding of the subject that may or may not agree with any other book. Then Theosophy became a philosophical system and a world view rather than a progressive revelation of some ultimate Truth. One theosophical writer no longer had to agree with another. Theosophical books did not have to be expressions of theosophical truths--they could also be misunderstandings of them. And that was OK too. Spiritual journeys seem to begin with some spiritual insight-- something that awakens an awareness that we have always had. CWL has an uncanny ability to do this to people. Alan, Eldon and Alexis also mentioned starting out with CWL. For beginning this journey, I think we, and many others owe a debt of gratitude to CWL. But a spiritual journey does not end after the first step. We have far to go and part of that journey requires us to learn to discern the true from the false. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 4 18:22:18 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 20:22:18 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606041822.UAA11990@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Considering my Newage FAQ This afternoon I posted a reply to Daniels questions on theos-news. After seeing that Daniel had also posted my FAQ on theos-l it occurred to me that it would be better to discuss my reply on theos-l. Hence I reproduce my reply and add a little comment to it. >>I reproduce below Martin's FAQ which I just happened to stumble across a few >>minutes ago. >>Martin, why didn't you tell us about this! See his references to Theos-l >>and alt.theosophy and >>to TI. >> >>Daniel Daniel, I DID tell theos-l folks about it. The first time I mentioned it was october/november 1994 when I asked permission to add info about theos-l to my FAQ. The second time was a couple of weeks ago when I talked about my activities concerning the popularization of theosophy. But, in one thing you're right, I do not blow the horn (trumpet?) about this activity in theosophical circles. I may occasionally mention it and then drop the subject. Originally, the idea to post a FAQ containing theosophical references to newsgroups was born with Paul Gillingwater. We had some E-mail exchanges about my articles on theosophy, the world wide web and newsgroups. My FAQ has grown and evolved during the years. It has undergone a major change in format a couple of months ago. My motive behind developing this FAQ has been twofold: - to disseminate info about theosophy to a major newsgroup, and I chose talk.religion.newage because there may be many seekers for spiritual knowledge there (many confused because of the many pseudo-spiritual organizations that seem to exist) - to disseminate info on spirituality, religion, philosophy, etc. in a more general sense (not specifically theosophical) as a service to the internet audience. By doing so I also wanted to show that there are theosophists who don't confine themselves to a narrow circle of what to many seem to be an out worn , outdated, philosophy. You may have gathered by now, that I'm not particularly satisfied with the theosophical societies in this world. I think members have not realized sufficiently that the theosophical teachings must be extended (in several ways, one example being synthesizing modern psychological findings in it, another way being to put theosophical teachings in a more easy-to-read format). An important consideration is, IMO, that theosophists should not think they have the monopoly on truth. The newage movement has effectively taken over some of the original spiritual impulse, and, I may add, the newage movement is *very* diverse, containing fresh ideas and practices and unavoidibly lots of chaff amongst the wheat. So, an open mind to new developments is *necessary* , imperative, in order for theosophists to popularize and promulgate some of the teachings in the light of new findings & developments. We must learn to connect to people, to their ideas, take them seriously and see how we can contribute something. Not always easy, and I would like to see the informed opinion of others on this! Added note: I really would like to see experienced theosophists write some useful aricles for the internet-community, expose some of their explorations of the spiritual and psychic worlds, help to establish some extensions to theosophy, etc. Martin From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 17:30:24 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 13:30:24 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606041932.AA24854@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 01:26 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >Plagiarism is definitely pernicious, but I don't think Besant was a >plagiarist. I think she allowed Leadbeater to put things together in her >name, and that's fraudulent, and fraud is pernicious. You thinking this was so doesn't make it so. And, as I said, most of ABs books are actually speeches she gave at different occasions. Perhaps CWL was her speech writer? I don't think so, but I don't really know or care. I read the books and I find mental clarity AND devotion in them. The teachings so presented are very beneficial, and, as far as I can see, fairly (although not perfectly) accurate. Leadbeater also wrote >things and put them out under Krishnamurti's name (something Krishnamurti >bitterly resented). I have an interesting book by Mary Lutyens (?) that goes into some detail regarding K, CWL and AB. Will get back to that. But obviously you and I will never have a meeting of the >minds on this subject You are probably right, but it is interesting to see what you base your opinions on. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 4 19:37:30 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 12:37:30 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960604193730.006c4464@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: All "out of the body" experiences are NOTHING BUT hallucinations?? At 10:38 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >On alt.eckankar I found the following posting by Dr. Mike > Mueckler (biologist, I believe) who was once a member >of the Eckankar group, who also has had many, many >out-of-body experiences himself over the course of his life, > and who as you will see in the post below, is now totally >skeptical that such "soul traveling" is really real. Of course, >I don't agree with his *extreme* position. I thought >Alexis, Jerry S., JRC and others might be interested with the >"attitude" displayed by Dr. Mueckler towards "psychic experiences." >Far too many scientists have this attitude toward the psychic and >this was part of what I was trying to convey to Alexis in one >of my postings a month or two ago. > >Daniel > >Ah. To paraphrase an old cliche: "Hell hath no fury like a disillusioned devotee". I think Dr. Mueckler is desperate to undo the damage to his scientific reputation caused by his affiliation with Eckankar and so now is "Plus Royaliste que Le Roi". The mistake that he, and many skeptics make, is in assuming that just because one can to some degree reproduce certain effects in the laboratory, that is the only explanation for the phenomenon. It is very easy to photograph a Rembrandt painting, but that doesn't make the result a Rembrandt Painting. I am not an admirer of Eckankar, and it's just possible that all of the experiences of out-of-body states that its devotees experience, are the result of "guided meditations", or induced self-hypnosis, and might truly be simply hallucinations. I regularly have experiences of the spiritual state but I will not, and cannot claim, I have "out of body" experiences, it's more a case of bilocality. I have had one totally out of body experience but that was in connection with just having been declared dead. alexis From kymsmith@micron.net Tue Jun 4 19:50:00 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 13:50 MDT From: kymsmith@micron.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Daniel Caldwell Dear Daniel, Thank you for your educational and informative reply to my query on reincarnation and "Isis Unveiled." I am a member of the Theosophical Society (Wheaton, IL), so it will be easy for me to obtain the books you recommended. When you find the time could you post the quotes you spoke of (or tell me where I can find them) and the titles of the articles by Ms. Blavatsky? Also, what is the Blavatsky Foundation? Sincerely, Kym From martinle@lainet.com Tue Jun 4 20:39:59 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:39:59 -0700 From: martinle@lainet.com (Martin Leiderman) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re: CWL >> Martin Leiderman wrote: >> I always ask myself, if I go to India and select one individual to be the >> World Teacher and I choose one like Krishnaji . . . alas! what are the >> odds??? . . . what do you think Ramadoss, my brother. Ramadoss wrote: > You have brought a very interesting question. Let me add that when >Krishnaji was "discovered" he was a very puny and not a bright looking >eleven year old. What are the odds of chosing such a boy and who never >passed a single examination and never had a formal educational >certificate and who turns out to be a world renowned speaker? Question to Jerry Hejka-Ekins What is your opinion on CWL discovering "unbright young Krishamurti" ? What are the odds? Was he all that off everytime in all "his" opinions? From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 4 19:41:32 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 15:41:32 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606042046.QAA25141@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Your discussions At this point I see coming that some of you are going to start in some more dragging Leadbeater through the mud, and now you're starting in on Annie Besant. I don't belong to this list any more. I like to talk Theosophy that's uplifteing, & there are too many on this list who insist on down dragging. Well, without me. Good-bye. Liesel From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 4 23:25:18 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 19:25:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960604192517_549359908@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Alex, Having never met a wolf in person, I bow to your experience. I have never met a sheep before either, but I love roast lamb. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 4 21:58:20 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 17:58:20 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606050000.AA27564@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl At 07:30 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Having never met a wolf in person, I bow to your experience. >I have never met a sheep before either, but I love roast lamb. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker Ah! The Atrocious One is back joking about us lamb! Firmly ensconsed behind his filter list! Bah! Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 4 23:59:49 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:59:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To: Daniel Caldwell In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , kymsmith@micron.net writes >Also, what is the Blavatsky Foundation? > >Sincerely, > >Kym > And so ask all of us ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 4 23:54:15 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:54:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Spiritual Journey In-Reply-To: <9606041820.AA05269@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9606041820.AA05269@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes > But a spiritual journey does not end after the first step. >We have far to go and part of that journey requires us to learn >to discern the true from the false. > >JHE One teacher used the following analogy for those attracted by the *glamour* of the "Templar" and "Magickal" approaches: "To start to build your own spiritual temple, take one brick. Place it upon another brick ..." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 4 23:30:31 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:30:31 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Intelligence Tests In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960604055119.006b17ec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960604055119.006b17ec@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >I.Q. is >just one bit of information to add to the data-bank, but it's really >meaningless in making comparisons between people. >"Rough guide" yes, "accurate chart" no! > >alexis I have long said that there should be an "E.Q." (Emotional Quotient) to go along with the I.Q. I walked away from MENSA because all they want to do is carry on playing mind- and puzzle-games. Raher like the Masons have to have 33 variants of "Knock, knock, who's there!" 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 Jun 5 00:33:55 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 19:33:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: re: CWL In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Martin Leiderman wrote: > >> Martin Leiderman wrote: > >> I always ask myself, if I go to India and select one individual to be the > >> World Teacher and I choose one like Krishnaji . . . alas! what are the > >> odds??? . . . what do you think Ramadoss, my brother. > > Ramadoss wrote: > > You have brought a very interesting question. Let me add that when > >Krishnaji was "discovered" he was a very puny and not a bright looking > >eleven year old. What are the odds of chosing such a boy and who never > >passed a single examination and never had a formal educational > >certificate and who turns out to be a world renowned speaker? > > > Question to Jerry Hejka-Ekins > What is your opinion on CWL discovering "unbright young Krishamurti" ? > What are the odds? Was he all that off everytime in all "his" opinions? > Let me add: From the time Krishnaji was discovered by CWL, AB was also convinced of the discovery and she went all out to support Krishnaji in all possible ways. After Krishnaji started his life long career in speaking, there was none of his International Stature in this area. Even after Krishnaji passed away, I am yet to see any person of his stature on the horizon. We had several well known TS leaders but none came close to his stature. Ramadoss From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed Jun 5 00:35:17 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:35:17 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606050035.AA18758@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: re CWL (to Ramadoss) Ramadoss asks: >> You have brought a very interesting question. Let me add >>that when Krishnaji was "discovered" he was a very puny and not >>a bright looking eleven year old. What are the odds of chosing >>such a boy and who never passed a single examination and never >>had a formal educational certificate and who turns out to be a >>world renowned speaker? >Question to Jerry Hejka-Ekins >What is your opinion on CWL discovering "unbright young >Krishamurti" ? What are the odds? Was he all that off everytime >in all "his" opinions? Allow me to answer your question by relating my personal experience on the matter: Around 1965, a woman friend who was a follower of Krishnamurti invited me to go with her to hear him speak in Ojai. That was my first experience with K. I remember Mrs. L. telling me the history of K. as the one time Theosophical World teacher who quit the Society and went off on his own. That was the first time I heard the story, since the fellow members in the Lodge I belonged to never talked about those things. Rather, they were very sensitive about exposing "dirty linen" in front of me, as they did not want to scare me away. After K. finished his talk, Mrs. L. told me that she was disappointed, and was sorry that she picked today to hear him because it was one of his "off days." She said that K. was rambling and didn't really say anything that day, but when he was "on," he was really "profound." She expressed the hope that I would have the opportunity to hear him at another time when he was more "on." But I wasn't at all disappointed, and found the whole experience fascinating--and I was particularly interested in the idea that throngs of people gathered to listen to a man ramble for the off chance that he would have an "on day" and say something profound. I was also fascinated with the question and answer period that followed the talk. I remember that K. deemed most of the questions as not legitimate and refused to answer them. I also remember someone asking him about his theosophical past. To this question, he was particularly vociferous about it being an improper one. Since I lived in Los Angeles until 1990, Ojai was only a 90 minute drive, and K. spoke there every spring, so he was easily accessible for me to hear at my pleasure. So whenever Spring came along and I was not too busy with other obligations, I would throw a blanket in the back of the car drive up, pay my five dollars at the gate, pitch my blanket under the shade of a tree and watch the show. I remember that some years his talks were rambling like the first one I heard, other years he would sometimes seem to occasionally catch a wind of inspiration and he would speak fluently and really capture the attention of his audience. I found that every year he would cover certain themes, which in the light of later knowledge, I find many of them to be ironic. For instance, I remember that he often talked about non attachment to material things. Yet he owned a Mercedes Benz--a real social status car at the time. He used to advise the younger people in the audience against getting sexually involved. That struck me as funny at the time. I thought: now here is a man who has lived a saintly, protected and celibate life giving sexual advice to teenagers. How presumptuous of him. It stuck me as being like like a Catholic Priest doing marriage counseling. Now that his twenty year affair with Ragagopal's wife has come out, I now realize that he was really speaking from personal experience. Though I don't think anyone guessed this at the time. Most interesting was his theme; "Don't follow me. Hear what I have to say, go and live your own life." Yet throngs of followers crowded into that grove every year to hear the words of the great Krishnamurti. It occurred to me that those who *really* heard Krishnamurti and followed his advice were *not* the ones who were coming every year to the oak grove, and they were *not* the ones who were buying his books. Now to answer your question. "What are the odds of chosing such a boy and who never passed a single examination and never had a formal educational certificate and who turns out to be a world renowned speaker? Probably quite good considering the exceptional environment and training the TS gave to K. He was left to want for nothing. He was surrounded by tutors and had the opportunity to go to the best schools in the world. He traveled the world extensively and was given the best accomodations. With his training and the publicity he received all of his life, I would have found it hard to believe that he could have become anything other than a "world renound speaker." He was trained to do this, and nothing else. But was Krishnamurti really what CWL thought he was? It appears that K. did not think so. He rejected the ceremonies, the disciples, and the LCC that was supposed to be the vehicle for his message. K. turned out to be a young man with enough integrity to reject what he did not believe. On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation was able to sustain Krishnamurti's stature as a spiritual teacher and maintain itself quite well with the income from K's books and his continuing lecture tours. During K's lifetime, he was able to attract ample wealthy donors that kept him and the Foundation in the financial security he grew accustomed to while under the care of the Theosophical Society. So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time in all `his' opinions?" I don't know. The odds are that CWL had to have been right about some things. But it is clear to me that Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right about. However, I must add that I deeply admire Krishnamurti's integrity in rejecting CWL's vision and for leaving the TS. Also, I must point out that K's "Pathless land" speech reaches to the heart of HPB's teachings and goes directly against CWL's. This, I believe to be evidence of real spiritual intuition on Ks part, since it is unlikely that K ever read a word of HPB in his life. I like K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ? I don't think so. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 4 22:54:48 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 23:54:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Clean up In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960604054534.006c01dc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960604054534.006c01dc@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >It seems to me that we must clean up our past, so that we can see clearly >what needs to be "cleaned up" in our present. It seems to me that simply >rearranging the present while ignoring the past is like sweeping the dust >under the carpet. Without the past there is no present, and if the present >is to be made better than it is, it cannot happen without acknowledging the >things that have accrued from the past that may be hindering or obstructing >the present. > >alexis Er, yes - but that's what I was saying. The original post said we must clean up our past, and I added "AND" our present. IOW, both things are needed. Still it does not hurt tosay it again :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 4 22:51:35 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 23:51:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! In-Reply-To: <960604011921_127320530@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960604011921_127320530@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Jerry, >Considering the quality of people claiming to be chelas these days, I'm >damned glad I'm not one. >And I finally got onto my own newsgroup today! I used a local outfit called >Ripco. Now all we need is for it to get to the bigger servers. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Demon Internet Ltd (UK) serves around 45,000 and is growing. It picked up alt.theosophy as soon as it appeared. Not many people posting to it so far though ... I put the TI staement up and: nothing. 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 Jun 5 01:08:51 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 20:08:51 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960604201109.0877ec46@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Krishnaji Jerry wrote: >>> Clip >>>> > >Now to answer your question. "What are the odds of chosing >such a boy and who never passed a single examination and never >had a formal educational certificate and who turns out to be a >world renowned speaker? Probably quite good considering the >exceptional environment and training the TS gave to K. He was >left to want for nothing. He was surrounded by tutors and had >the opportunity to go to the best schools in the world. He As far as I have read, I do not think he ever went any of the *best* schools. Have you found any specific details of the schools he attended? >traveled the world extensively and was given the best >accomodations. With his training and the publicity he received >all of his life, I would have found it hard to believe that he >could have become anything other than a "world renound speaker." >He was trained to do this, and nothing else. But was >Krishnamurti really what CWL thought he was? It appears that K. >did not think so. He rejected the ceremonies, the disciples, and >the LCC that was supposed to be the vehicle for his message. K. >turned out to be a young man with enough integrity to reject what >he did not believe. > >On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and >some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation >was able to sustain Krishnamurti's stature as a spiritual teacher >and maintain itself quite well with the income from K's >books and his continuing lecture tours. During K's lifetime, he >was able to attract ample wealthy donors that kept him and the >Foundation in the financial security he grew accustomed to while >under the care of the Theosophical Society. > >So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time >in all `his' opinions?" I don't know. The odds are that CWL had >to have been right about some things. But it is clear to me that >Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right about. > >However, I must add that I deeply admire Krishnamurti's integrity >in rejecting CWL's vision and for leaving the TS. Also, I must >point out that K's "Pathless land" speech reaches to the heart of >HPB's teachings and goes directly against CWL's. This, I believe >to be evidence of real spiritual intuition on Ks part, since it >is unlikely that K ever read a word of HPB in his life. I like >K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ? I don't >think so. I don't think any one can be certain about whether he is the returned Christ or not. If he is the returned Christ, then you have the problem of the religions like Hindu, Buddhism, Moslem etc rejecting him because it is not their prophet or Avatar who is returning. Just a thought. If he really the returned Christ he would have had severe problems from the various Christian denominations all over world - some accepting and some rejecting. > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ As for his lectures, I have attended many in the mid sixties and early seventies. But much of what he was trying to say had an effect on me only later in the mid eighties onwards mainly through his video tapes. This is especially true of my attitude to life and those of my fellow humans and other living creatures. I am very grateful for it. ...Ramadoss From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 03:17:34 1996 Date: 04 Jun 96 23:17:34 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: All "out of the body" experiences are NOTHING BUT hallucinations?? Message-Id: <960605031734_76400.1474_HHL60-3@CompuServe.COM> Dan, Thanks for the post on the scientific view of psychism and OBEs. What was left unsaid was all of the cases where the patient, while near death, saw and heard what was going on around them, and recalled it all afterwards. This happened to my wife during birth of our first son. The doctor gave her a shot and told her that she would not be able to remember anything. She not only had full recall, but told him exactly what he was doing, what he had said, and so on. The doctor was left speechless, with no explanation. While it is easy for a doctor or outside observer to scoff at these experiences, those who have them tend to believe them because they seem very real, and also because of information they learned that could not have come through the physical senses, because these were all closed. The sheer number of folk who have had these experiences is staggering. Only a few scientists (such as C.G. Jung) are big enough to accept that the psychic is a separate continuum, as real as the physical one. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 03:17:31 1996 Date: 04 Jun 96 23:17:31 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Blind Men and the Elephant Message-Id: <960605031731_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> >But theosophy is more than that and less than that. It is knowledge, and >understanding, and a urgently questing mind. It is a mind that seeks beyond >the superficialities of religion. It is a mind that seeks! And in seeking, >demonstrates rather than teaches! >alexis Exactly. A theosophist should help others, and learn from the process. Helping and working with other people should be a learning experience. With the learning, we will be able to be even better helpers the next time. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 03:17:29 1996 Date: 04 Jun 96 23:17:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Response to JRC's posting Message-Id: <960605031729_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM> >>... I struggle often with even the most recent writings of Theosophy >> (Quest Magazine is an example) >> Doss:> You are not alone in finding the writings of Theosophy in Quest >being difficult. I have been around Theosophy for quite some time, and I >have found it very difficult to read and many times the magazine went >straight into the waste paper basket immediately after it arrived. It >appears that Quest is on its way to a natural death after the next three >or so issues. I hate to say "I told you so" but way back in the PeaceNet days, I wrote an article about the Fog Index, and how Quest's was so high that the magazine was in danger of dying for lack of a reading public. Looks like I was right. I only wonder how it has lasted this long, and why they didn't ease up a bit on the all the Ph.D. phrasology. Pd.D.s make a magazine respectable, but also so difficult to read that the public (which has a 7th grade reading level) is usually left in the cold. The Quest is a great magazine, but clearly not suitable for Joe Sixpack. Jerry S. Member, TI From RIhle@aol.com Wed Jun 5 03:24:06 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 23:24:06 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960604232404_210725227@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Jerry S. writes> > As Alexis has noted, wolves are actually gentle. Sheep >can be as nasty as anything, you know. My use of the terms, spawned >by Bjorn's horror at what he called the theosophical "wolves," was not >directed at gentleness vs nastiness but rather at sheepishly following >the literature, or using one's experiences to wolfishly shift the chaff from >the theosophical wheat. Richard Ihle writes> Ok, now I get it. One might be wise, however, not to overlook the possibility that there may be very few, if any, common sheep on this list if one thinks of them in your latter way. First appearances may be deceiving. Underlying motives are important. Perhaps many of those who seem sheep-like are really those who are the most serious about trying to establish an elevated, wolf-style "dominance position" for themselves. Think you, Jerry, that your hard-acquired modicum of personal theosophical knowledge makes you any sort of worthy in their eyes? Think again. All the literature-muncher has to do to pass you up is to take the "faith-leap" that his or her knowledge comes by means of a holy line of Preternatural Dispensation, and you are defaulted below him or her with no further ado whatever. This is why there is such a big commotion every time the "Masters" issue is brought up: without a True-Jesus in the background somewhere, the Jehovah's Specially Appointed Witnesses at your door would just be an off-duty retail clerk with unattended nose hair and a homemaker with blue-light-special shoes going around bothering people. Similarly, without the capital ~M~ on ~Master~ or the ~T~ on ~Theosophical doctrine~, a certain type of person apparently has hard time thinking that he or she is better than the next guy. . . . No, I am unaware of any common sheep on this list. Here, we have BIG, egoically purposeful sheep whose merest turds are like mountains coming down to scatter a few tiny wolves. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Jun 4 06:49:50 1996 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:49:50 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606040649.XAA12001@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Look at Martin Euser's updated FAQ on Spiritual & Newage resources for newcomers >I reproduce below Martin's FAQ which I just happened to stumble across a few >minutes ago. >Martin, why didn't you tell us about this! See his references to Theos-l >and alt.theosophy and >to TI. > >Daniel > >>http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@7902@talk%2ereligion%2en ewage >> Spiritual & Newage resources FAQ for newcomers >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> From Martin Euser >> Organization EuroNet Internet >> Date 2 Jun 1996 12:25:17 GMT >> Newsgroups talk.religion.newage >> Message-ID <4os17d$f8u@news.euro.net> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> The purpose of this document is to point the way to newcomers on Usenet >> to Internet resources concerning religion, spirituality >> (in a broad sense) and connected issues. >> If anyone can add to this info, please mail to: >> >> euser@euronet.nl >> >> Please include a short characteristic of the resource >> you want to have included in this FAQ. >> >> >> What's New in this FAQ (June, 1996) >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> Newsgroups >> >> There's a new newsgroup, alt.theosophy , dedicated to a new approach >> to this old philosophy (theosophy). Psychic & noetic experiences will be >> discussed and related to theosophical, newage and psychological concepts. >> Old terminology may well be replaced by new one, more up to date. >> Syntheses will be sought, proposed and established. >> Independant research into psychic/noetic realms by individuals is encouraged. >> >> A variety of theosophists, some of them psychics, including a shaman will be >> present shortly on this forum to give their outspoken views. >> (Advice can be offered to those with experiences that have >> frightened them or that they wonder about. ) >> >> >> TIP >> >> Getting access to usenet groups your site doesn't provide for: >> >> did you know that you can use Digital's Altavista searchengine >> as a Newsgroup-reader? Search for a group, say, in the alt. hierarchy, >> (usenet search rather then world wide web search) and you can >> read articles, post one and reply. Easy and quick. Also useful for a search >> on what a specific person has posted in several newsgroups.. >> >> Point your browser to: http://www.altavista.digital.com >> >> >> >> >> >> The Web: >> >> >> o In the psychological-emotional realm there's work being done by a famous >> psychic, Earl Gordon Curley, whose work on the '21 emotions exercise' >> seems to have had quite a success. >> See http://www.asgo.net/~psychic/ >> >> >> o Theosophy International (TI) consists of a group of theosophists >> dedicated to a renewal of theosophy. Terminology, psychic/noetic >> experiences, alternative interpretations of teachings, establishing >> new syntheses are among its interests. >> >> www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html >> E-mail: ti@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. Alan Bain) >> (See also newsgroup alt.theosophy) >> >> >> >> Mailing list: >> >> name: with*miracle e-gathering >> Listowner: tjoslin@magpage.com (theodore joslin) >> [contact to receive full mision statement or further info] >> >> group focus: with*miracle has been established to create a >> peaceful and open environment to discuss personal views and >> experiences of spirituality. all faiths are welcomed, that we may >> learn from the diversity of perspectives and see that the spirit >> works in infinite ways. The name "with miracle" reflects my [tj] belief >> that we are always in the presence of the miracle of being alive >> in a living universe. >> >> subscription address: listserver@del.net >> subscription command: join with-miracle >> >> >> >> (End of what's New) >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> 1. GENERAL NEWAGE INFO, SITES & RESOURCES: >> >> >> WWW-sites (short description included): >> ---------- >> >> o The OMNet home page has moved to: >> >> http://www.portal.com/~tyagi/om.html >> >> The new WWW-mage's guide is available at: >> >> http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/magi.html >> >> >> The OMNet gives you access to the Mage's guide , >> OMiNous Newsletters and to other info about the work they're doing. >> >> You can download the old Mage's Guide to the Internet ( version 2.0) >> or have a look at the new online WWW-Mage's guide compiled by Tyagi >Nagasiva. These guides describe many resources ( mystical >> and occult documents & groups on Internet, including WWW-sites, >> Mailing Lists, FTP-sites, Telnet Mystical Links, BBSs, Newsgroups, >> Electronic Guides, etc.) >> >> >> An OMiNous newsletter containing information about resources within the >Internet esoteric and spiritual communities is available at: >> >> txt://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/magick/OMNet/omin1.06 >> >> or >> >> txt://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/OMNet/omin/omin1.06 >> >> Look there for new issues as well >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> o www.newageinfo.com/res/welcome.htm >> Resources MASTERINDEX for New Age sites >> see also www.newageinfo.com/res/newage.htm >> >> >> o www1.usa1.com/~salemctr/center1.html >> New Age FAQs >> >> o www1.usa1.com/~caa/newage.html >> New Age vs New Thought Movement >> >> o www.sedona.net/nen/nhne >> New heaven new earth website; a good place to start. >> >> o www.well.com >> A site with a good portion New Age >> >> o www.sun-angel.com >> www.sun-angel.com/noosphere/noosphere.html >> >> o www.spdcc.com/home/newage/sub-newage.html >> New Age journal >> www.spdcc.com/home/newage/otherlnk.html >> Digital therapist.. >> >> o www.kei.com/homepages/mkapor >> Mitch Kapor's homepage. Internet and New Age. >> (co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) >> >> >> o www.euro.net/5thworld/mystic/ >> >> >> >> >> 2. BRIDGES, SYNTHESES, INTERNETWORKING >> >> >> >> o http://rain.org/~origin/ >> >> This site (the Origin network) combines science, humanistic philosophy, >> and the spiritual insights of every culture, in a multi-faceted >> dialogue that is intended to conduct the "search for truth" in the >> context of the entire Internet. The objective of the network is to build >> relationships-- between people, ideas, cultural groups, philosophical >> and religious traditions-- and to help transform global society >> gradually as the composite wisdom of global culture is cooperatively >> organized by network participants and radiated across the world. >> The associated Bridge-l mailing list is an important part of this network. >> The world-scripture project (and book) can also be found here (see below). >> >> o The Internet Interfaith Consortium (IIC), dedicated to promoting >> interreligious dialogue, has an interesting WWW site with comparitive >> fragments of World Scriptures. >> >> See: http://rain.org/~origin/ws.html >> >> IIC has compiled a cooperative catalogue, available at: >> >> http://rain.org/~origin/iic.html >> >> >> 0 Web-site for the conference on the 'ideal society': >> http://rain.org/~origin/is.html >> >> >> 0 Interfaith working group: >> http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/religion/orgs/iwg/iwg.html >> (Chris Purdom) >> >> >> >> 0 School of Wisdom WWW-site >> >> http://www.webcom.com/~metanoic/wisdom/ >> >> holistic systhesis of science/religion; fractals & chaos theory; >> esoteric music; enneagram; & much more. >> This site has a large collection of search-engines. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 3. TOPICS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER: >> >> >> ARE-Press >> http://www.itribe.net/are/ >> Writings of Edgar Cayce >> >> ASATRU >> http://io.com/user/mimir/asatru.html >> >> >> ASTROLOGY >> >> o www.sentex.net/~aquarius/update.html >> Astrology and classical music; site has soundsamples >> >> o www.bdd.com/horo1/bddhoro1.cgi/horo >> >> >> o See also Spirit-WWW (Comprehensive site) >> >> >> ATHEISM >> >> o Web site that offers textual sources for examining atheism >> in both the traditional anti-theist and newer ways: >> >> http://www.chattanooga.net/~tpkunesh/atheism.f/relaths.htm >> -= a Guide for the Complete Atheist =- >> a brief compilation of sources according to Christianity, >> classical atheists, liberation theology, and religious atheists >> >> tom kunesh >> >> >> BUDDHISM >> >> >> o Tibetan Buddhism - transcripts from Dzoghen meetings by Lama Surya Das >> in Cambridge, MA. Teachings in a modern setting: >> http://www.kei.com/homepages/surya >> >> o coombs.anu.edu.au:80/WWWVL-Buddhism.html >> The site where all Buddhistic texts are being collected, >> studied and made accessible for laymen and professionals >> see also coombs.anu.edu.au >> >> >> >> >> CLASSICAL STUFF >> >> o A serious page with links to a huge number of sites regarding >> classical stuff: >> http://www.ucd.ie/~sspence/classics.html >> >> >> >> COMPREHENSIVE SITES (RELIGION, SPIRITUALITY, NEWAGE, ETC.) >> >> o Spirit-WWW (maintained by Rene' Mueller) >> >> Description: this site has many topics about spiritual issues. >> Examples: Astrology, Theosophy, Reincarnation, Gnosis, Veda & Dharma, >> Yoga Paths, Lightwork, Healing Methods, etc. >> >> A calendar of spiritual events, conferences, etc. can be found here >> and is regularly updated. >> >> Also, you can get access here to newsgroups from the alt. hierarchy >> not available on your site. >> >> How to reach: the universal resource locator (URL) is: >> >> http://zeta.cs.adfa.oz.au/Spirit.html >> (this is the Australian site) >> >> http://www.protree.com/Spirit.html >> (USA) >> >> http://www.spiritweb.org/ >> (main site;USA) >> >> http://www.linknet.it/Spirit/ >> (Italy) >> >> -------------------------------- >> >> (ALEISTER) CROWLEY, MAGICK, ETC. >> >> http:// www.winternet.com/~robin >> http://www.lsi.usp.br/usp/rod/text/aleister_crowley.html >> >> ECKANKAR >> http://www.eckankar.org >> >> >> GNOSIS >> >> http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/ >> http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/hotlist/hotlist.htm >> http://www.clark.net/pub/murple/gnostic.html >> http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/hotlist/hermet.html >> >> >> HERMETIC TEXTS >> >> o The texts of the Corpus Hermeticum are being made available >> on the web--The URL is >> http://www.speakeasy.org/~mimir/caduceus/hermetica/index.html >> >> >> KABBALAH >> >> http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/ >> Colin's Hermetic Kabbalah Page >> >> http://www.webcom.com/~hermit/page/sefer.html >> The Sefer Yetzirah >> >> http://fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de:8080/~cantsin/maimon.html >> Maimonides >> >> >> MAGICK/OCCULT WWW-sites: >> >> http://www.tezcat.com/~wednsday/magick.html >> http://matrix.eden.com/11/eden/users/jher/occult >> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/sk4p/occult/occult >> >> http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/magick.html >> All kind of links to magick, alchemy, qabala/Kabalah,mysticism, >> old groups, new groups, etc. >> >> http://www.uib.no/wolf/zoo/bjorn/occult.html >> (in the magick directory you can find a bulletin board for exchange of >information and questions, etc.) >> >> Anonymous FTP-sites with files relating to magick and occultism: >> >> ftp.lysator.liu.se >> >> Directory: /pub/magick/ >> Subdirectories: Alchemy/; Beginner/; Books/; Chaos/; Community/; >> Consciousness/; Enochian/; General/ ; Golden_Dawn/; Mysticism/; >> Necronomicon/; Net/; Ordo_templi_orientis/; Orgone_committee/; >> Qabalah/; Ritual/; and more >> >> ----------------- >> >> nic.funet.fi >> >> subdirectory /pub/doc/occult/magick >> directory /pub/magick has many subdirectories >> >> ---------------- >> >> >> nic.funet.fi/pub/doc/religion/occult >> ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/magick >> ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/religion/neopagan >> wiretap.spies.com/Library/Fringe/Occult >> imageek.york.cuny.edu/pub >> >> >> alamut.topy.org/pub/alamut/topy >> ftp.netcom.com/pub/ffunch/spirevol.html >> ftp.netcom.com/pub/pa/pali151 >> ftp.netcom.com/pub/Sh/Shub >> ftp.portal.com/pub/ss/usenet >> ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/alt.magick.gems >> ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/equinox >> ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/magick >> ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/omnet >> ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/programs >> >> >> The following newsgroups may be of interest as well: >> >> alt.magick >> alt.magick.chaos >> alt.magick.sex >> alt.magick.serious >> alt.magick.tyagi >> alt.magick.ethics >> alt.pagan >> alt.religion.wicca >> alt.tarot >> alt.mythology >> alt.religion.shamanism >> soc.religion.shamanism >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> MEDITATION >> >> o Spiritual unfoldment meditation web site at : >> >> http://www.cityscape.co.uk/users/ea80/fisu.htm >> >> fisu@cityscape.co.uk Rajesh Ananda at Foundation for International >Spiritual Unfoldment >> >> >> o The Third Circle Web Site: >> >> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/WEagle/ >> >> Instructions and examples of simple but powerful meditations. >> The web site contains a section on the philosophy of TTC. >> The Third Circle (TTC) is because you are your own Master. >> An important concept is that of Self Source of Authority (SSOA). >> >> >> (AVATAR) MEHER BABA >> >> o The Avatar Meher Baba home page is available on the WWW at URL: >> http://www.oslonett.no/home/erics/index.html >> >> It is maintained by Eric Solibakke at Oslonett public access >> and has an extensive selection of essential messages as well as a >> brief biography, GIFs, pilgrimage information and address lists. >> A newly added Anthology offers a wide range of Spiritual teaching >> and inspirational stories, including anecdotes about Perfect Masters >> and saints. A collection of Spiritual poetry called "Poetry of the >> HeartMind" can also be accessed. This page provides a "Quote of >> the Day" service at http://www.oslonett.no/home/erics/today.html >> >> Another Meher Baba www-site: http://davey.sunyerie/mb/html/mb.html >> >> >> >> MISCELLANEOUS >> >> o "SpiritLink Services"- http://www.amug.org:80/~a220/ >> >> Channeled material from the Pleiadians, Astrology, Reincarnation, >> Sacred Geometry coloring book, Goddess Awakening Breathwork, Island >> Nation, Community and more. >> >> >> >> MYTHOLOGY >> >> http://www.io.org/~untangle/mythtext.html >> A collection of FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) from around the Internet. >> The collection deals with various mythological topics, the mythologies of >> various cultures, and with some of the mythology-related newsgroups and >listservs on the Net. >> Myths and Sacred scriptures (Bible,Koran), Theogony (Hesiod), Thousand and >> a night (Arabic tales), etc. >> >> >> NATURE, MOTHER EARTH (GAIA), RECONNECTION >> >> o http://www.pacificrim.net/~nature/ >> >> This site is dedicated to Project NatureConnect, >> an activity of the University of Global Education. >> Dr. Cohen [mjcohen@aol.com] has done much work on the area >> of teaching people to reconnect to nature and spirituality. >> >> >> >> >> PAGANISM >> >> http://www.lysator.liu.se/ftp/pub/religion/neopagan >> http://www.computel.com/~fireyes/pagan/pagan.html >> http://www.uwyo.edu/cte/Pagan.html >> http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/paganlink/plhome.html >> http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/paganlink/netstuff/pagan_net.html >> >> http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/paganlink/netstuff/paganwww.html >> (Pagan and occult sites) >> >> >> PROJECTS: >> >> Gutenberg >> >> Many text files on spirituality, e.g. Myths and Legends of the Sioux >> >> >> If you have an FTP program (or emulator), please >> FTP directly to the Project Gutenberg archives: >> [Mac users, do NOT point and click. . .type] >> >> ftp mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu >> login: anonymous >> password: your@login >> cd etext/etext90 through /etext95 >> or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more information] >> dir [to see files] >> get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files] >> GET INDEX?00.GUT >> for a list of books >> and GET NEW GUT for general information >> and MGET GUT* for newsletters. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> PYTHAGORAS >> http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/Mage/pythagoreans.html >> >> QABBALAH >> >> o Qabbalah WWW site. >> http://kether.sephiroth.org/vtol/ >> >> >> >> >> RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY >> >> Here follow some more links without further description: >> (not all verified on accuracy; In addition, websites move frequently >> to other locations; often there's a note on the old address that shows you >> the new location's address) >> >> http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/ >> Society and Culture:Religion [note, this URL seems to have changed] >> >> http://www.sedona.net >> >> Sun Angel Innovations http://www.sun-angel.com/ >> >> Unifying Fields Foundation http://www.sun-angel.com/uff/ >> >> >> http://www.digital.com/gnn/wic/hum.toc.html#relig >> >> http://galaxy.einet.net/galaxy/Arts-and-Humanities/Religion.html >> >> http://galaxy.einet.net/galaxy/Community/Religion.html >> >> http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dth3maf/gresham.html >> >> >> http://www.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/~amueller/religion/ >> >> http://akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo/Society_and_Culture/Religion/ >> >> http://www.einet.net/GJ/religion.html >> >> http://www.matisse.net/~peregrin/ >> >> >> >> ftp://panda1.uottawa.ca/pub/religion/ >> >> gopher://cwis.usc.edu:70/11/Other_Gophers_and_Information_Resources/ >> Gophers_by_Subject/Gopher_Jewels/acadamic/religion/Religion >> >> (the above all on one line) >> >> gopher://vega.lib.ncsu.edu:70/11/library/stacks/Alex/Browse%20by%20 >> Subject%3A%20Religion >> >> (all on one line) >> >> gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/11/global/phil >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> SAI BABA >> >> o contact sites for Sri Sathya Sai Baba: >> >> Sites on the Net favoring or critiquing Sri Sathya Sai Baba: >> http://www.inside-info.co.uk/BABA/saibaba.htm >> http://www.isc.tamu.edu/%7Emsr/hindu/sai/sai.html >> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~raghavan/sai.html >> http://www.afn.org/~afn24770 >> http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~hug >> http://www.chem.uottawa.ca/ravi/ravi.html >> http://www.tamu.edu:8000/~ggr4499/ >> http://pc1502.geographie.uni-regensburg.de/html/miracle.htm (sevaral) >> http://www.liv.ac.uk/~mhbarker/saibaba2.html >> http://www.stat.unipd.it/h2000/cicap/saibaba.html >> Usenet: newsgroup Soc.culture.indian, (see the thread entitled >> SANDEHA NIVARINI SATHYA SAI BABA DISSOLVING DOUBTS) >> >> Further details available from Bon_Giovanni@gaianet.net >> http://www.inside-info.co.uk/BABA/bon.htm >> >> >> SEDONA-net >> http://www.sedona.net >> >> >> SHAMANISM >> http://demon.co.uk/drci/shamen/shamanism/shamanism.html >> >> Shamanistic healing with Don Pedro: >> http://www.prgone.com/bus/dpedro >> >> >> >> SWEDENBORG >> http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/Swedenborg.html (old URL) >> The prefered Swedenborg URL is now: >> http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ES/ >> >> >> >> SUFI SITES >> >> o http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/sufi.mystica.html >> >> >> TAROT >> ftp.netcom.com/pub/bota >> (tarot & qabbalah) >> http://www.iii.net/users/dtking/tarot.html >> >> >> >> THEOSOPHY >> >> o Theosophy-WWW (maintained by Paul Gillingwater) >> >> Description: this site is dedicated to theosophical info mainly, >> though some other topics are also included like OBE >> and scientific work (chaos theory). It contains also >> some links to Zen and Newage-material. >> >> Examples: The seven jewels of wisdom; the psychological key to man; >> basic theosophical teachings; history of theosophy; >> Windows help-file about theosophy. Some of these articles >> are duplicated on Spirit-WWW. >> >> How to reach: >> >> http://actrix.gen.nz/users/paul/theos.html >> >> >> >> Bradford Theosophical Society: >> http://www.brad.ac.uk/%7Eatma/theosoc.html >> >> General Information on The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) >> can be found at: http://user.aol.com/tstec/hmpage/tsintro.htm >> >> >> Another Theosophical society: >> http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TS.html >> >> >> >> >> >> Introduction to the theosophy discussion-list: >> http://www.vnet.net/users/jem/theos-l.html >> >> USERS HOMEPAGES/MISCELLANEOUS >> >> o Owen Thomas's homepage: >> http://www.cts.com/browse/othomas0 >> >> >> VOODOO >> >> http://www.nando.net/prof/caribe/voodoo.html >> >> >> >> WICCA >> >> http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~crf8a/wicca.html >> http://www.eden.com/~aggedor/wicca.html >> >> >> >> >> ZEN >> >> http://oac11.hsc.uth.tmc.edu/zen/index.html >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> 4. MAILING LISTS >> ------------- >> >> >> NHNE. >> >> "NewHeavenNewEarth is a spontaneous, grass-roots network of people who >> believe that a divine plan is unfolding in the earth. Our primary goal is >> to identify, understand and manifest this plan as best we can. >> >> "We also believe that our planet is passing through a time of profound >> change. With this in mind, our secondary goal is to create a global >> community of like-minded people that can safely pass through whatever >> changes may come our way and help give birth to a new way of life on our >> planet. >> >> "NewHeavenNewEarth >> P.O. Box 10627 / Sedona / AZ / 86339-8627 >> The Internet: nhne@sedona.net / America Online: NHNE >> WWW: http://www.sedona.net/nen/nhne" >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Sacred Geometry and Sacred Architecture. >> It is part of a larger listserv that incorporates interests >> in sustainable agriculture and Permaculture landscape design. >> >> Some topics to be covered include SACRED GEOMETRY: >> >> History and philosophy, natural proportion, patterns, latent geometry >> Platonic solids, ratio and proportion, Pythagoras, Fibonacci, phi, >> golden section ; links between geometry, music, architecture >> Neo-Platonic revival; deco-era industrial design revival >> >> Sacred architecture : ancient and modern buildings, constructions, etc. >> >> Many tangent topics. >> >> To SUBSCRIBE, send e-mail to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu with the message: >> subscribe sustag-principles >> >> The Almanac System Administrator for NCCES >> e-mail: >> >> An archive is available at sunsite.unc.edu >> Access to this is possible by ftp, ftpmail, gopher and >> www. >> For any questions or requests about the archives, please address: >> Lawrence F. London, Jr. - london@sunSITE.unc.edu >> (or try Netsearch to locate archives; keyword: sacred geometry) >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> There is a special mailing list that will provide a daily >> spiritual/metaphysical quote. One can subscribe to it by sending a >> message with the word "subscribe" in the *subject* line to >> >> quotes-request@sun-angel.com >> >> >> >> New mailing lists are often announced through the NEW-LIST@vm1.nodak.edu >> >> You can subscribe to this list by sending mail to Listserv@vm1.nodak.edu >> In the body of your message put: subscribe New-list Your Name >> (inserting First_name Last_name at the place of Your Name) >> >> You can get more info by sending mail to Listserv@vm1.nodak.edu >> with the command GET NEW-LIST README in the body of the message. >> >> ------ >> >> Earth-Spirit mailing list: >> >> discussion-list of the interconnection of Earth-based activism >> and spirituality. Holistic point of view; dialogue about finding >> a common ground in spiritual motivation to protect Earth & Her children. >> >> The list's host is Communications for a Sustainable Future (CSF), >> located at the university of Colorado at Boulder. >> >> subscribe: send the following message to listserv@csf.colorado.edu >> >> Sub Earth-Spirit Yourfirstname Yourlastname >> >> >> coordinator: Joy Williams [ dhummer@netcom.com ] >> >> ----------- >> >> There's an Avatar Meher Baba listserver at LISTSERV@rex.sunyerie.edu >> >> To subscribe, send the command "SUBSCRIBE Baba" (without quotes) in the >> body of an email. >> >> The coordinator is Joseph Stewart [STEWART@nstaff.sunyerie.edu] >> >> >> ----------- >> >> The Theos-l mailing list is open for all individuals >> who want to talk about spirituality, philosophy and >> science and their experience of the spiritual. >> Understandably, this will be in a context of the >> Theosophical tradition. Nevertheless, the participants >> of this list are tolerant towards all religious views. >> >> How to subscribe? >> >> Send mail to: listserv@vnet.net >> Leave the subject line empty. >> In the body of the message, put: >> subscribe theos-l Firstname Surname >> (insert your first name and last name for Firstname and Surname) >> and shortly you will begin receiving mail >> and some instructions on how to use the listserver. >> >> ------------ >> >> MAILING LIST: HEAL-L >> >> Send "info heal-l" >> to promail@mb.protree.com, or >> "subscribe heal-l" to promail@mb.protree.com >> to join direct. >> You can access the connected page of heal-l in Healing- >> section of Spirit-WWW as well. >> For more info E-mail to: >> mblais@mblais.pdial.interpath.net >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 5. TELNET >> >> A new bulletin board service, including a chat service and a sophisticated >> messaging system, is available at theosophy.org >> Simply telnet to this site to connect to it. Lot's of interesting stuff, >> including Buddhistic essays. >> Recently, there has been added a web site: http://theosophy.org >> >> The above site is built and being maintained by independent Theosophists. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> 6. SEARCH ENGINES >> >> 0 The Alta Vista search engine from Digital Equipment Corporation: >> http://www.altavista.digital.com/ >> >> A gigantic database that is being updated daily. Contains information >> about newsgroups articles and public web sites. I tried it and found >> information I was looking for for a year! >> >> >> >> 0 Yahoo at http://www.yahoo.com/ >> >> Contains references to more than one million WWW-pages >> The homepage contains links to newage info. A regular newage FAQ >> is listed at one of these links. >> >> 0 Lycos at http://lycos2.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/pursuit >> Millions of unique adresses >> >> 0 Try the popular search engine: http://www.webcrawler.com >> >> >> 0 At CERN you can find an elegant search-service: >> http://cui_www.unige.ch/meta-index.html >> Contains also links to other search-engines and offers a Finger-service >> to locate people's E-mail addresses. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> 7. NEWSGROUPS >> >> >> Some consciousness related newsgroups: >> >> alt.astrology >> alt.atheism >> alt.consciousness >> alt.consciousness.mysticism >> alt.consciousness.4th-way >> alt.consciousness.near-death-exp >> alt.dreams >> alt.dreams.castaneda >> alt.dreams.lucid >> alt.evil >> alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna >> alt.freemasonry >> alt.jyotish >> >> Jyotish is the name of the science which is referred to in the West >> as "Vedic" or "Hindu" astrology (vedic prediction sciences). >> >> alt.magick.order >> alt.magick.serious >> alt.meditation >> alt.meditation.quanyin >> alt.out-of-body >> alt.paranormal.channeling >> alt.paranormal >> alt.paranet.paranormal >> alt.psychoactives >> alt.philosophy.zen >> alt.religion.eckankar >> alt.religion.asatru >> alt.religion.druid >> alt.religion.gnostic >> alt.religion.zoroastrianism >> alt.satanism >> >> Remark: the original notion of 'Lucifer' is one of *lightbringer* or >> lightcarrier, not an evil entity ('Satan')which it became later on >> in mainstream Christianity. Man *had* to eat from the 'tree of >> knowledge',ie. start developing self-consciousness in this world >> and thus learn to take responsibility for his actions. >> >> >> alt.yoga >> aus.religion >> clari.news.religion >> misc.creativity >> sci.philosophy.meta >> soc.religion.eastern >> talk.philosophy.misc >> talk.origins >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Martin Euser | Let us be united in our common search >> euser@euronet.nl | for truth >> http://www.spiritweb.org/ >> See: theosophy section >> or http://actrix.gen.nz/users/paul/theos.html >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > > > > > From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 4 13:38:07 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:38:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606041338.PAA04837@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: my newage FAQ >>I reproduce below Martin's FAQ which I just happened to stumble across a few >>minutes ago. >>Martin, why didn't you tell us about this! See his references to Theos-l >>and alt.theosophy and >>to TI. >> >>Daniel Daniel, I DID tell theos-l folks about it. The first time I mentioned it was october/november 1994 when I asked permission to add info about theos-l to my FAQ. The second time was a couple of weeks ago when I talked about my activities concerning the popularization of theosophy. But, in one thing you're right, I do not blow the horn (trumpet?) about this activity in theosophical circles. I may occasionally mention it and then drop the subject. Originally, the idea to post a FAQ containing theosophical references to newsgroups was born with Paul Gillingwater. We had some E-mail exchanges about my articles on theosophy, the world wide web and newsgroups. My FAQ has grown and evolved during the years. It has undergone a major change in format a couple of months ago. My motive behind developing this FAQ has been twofold: - to disseminate info about theosophy to a major newsgroup, and I chose talk.religion.newage because there may be many seekers for spiritual knowledge there (many confused because of the many pseudo-spiritual organizations that seem to exist) - to disseminate info on spirituality, religion, philosophy, etc. in a more general sense (not specifically theosophical) as a service to the internet audience. By doing so I also wanted to show that there are theosophists who don't confine themselves to a narrow circle of what to many seem to be an out worn , outdated, philosophy. You may have gathered by now, that I'm not particularly satisfied with the theosophical societies in this world. I think members have not realized sufficiently that the theosophical teachings must be extended (in several ways, one example being synthesizing modern psychological findings in it, another way being to put theosophical teachings in a more easy-to-read format). An important consideration is, IMO, that theosophists should not think they have the monopoly on truth. The newage movement has effectively taken over some of the original spiritual impulse, and, I may add, the newage movement is *very* diverse, containing fresh ideas and practices and unavoidibly lots of chaff amongst the wheat. So, an open mind to new developments is *necessary* , imperative, in order for theosophists to popularize and promulgate some of the teachings in the light of new findings & developments. We must learn to connect to people, to their ideas, take them seriously and see how we can contribute something. Not always easy, and I would like to see the informed opinion of others on this! Martin From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Jun 4 14:34:57 1996 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:34:57 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606041434.HAA28341@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: All "out of the body" experiences are NOTHING BUT hallucinations?? On alt.eckankar I found the following posting by Dr. Mike Mueckler (biologist, I believe) who was once a member of the Eckankar group, who also has had many, many out-of-body experiences himself over the course of his life, and who as you will see in the post below, is now totally skeptical that such "soul traveling" is really real. Of course, I don't agree with his *extreme* position. I thought Alexis, Jerry S., JRC and others might be interested with the "attitude" displayed by Dr. Mueckler towards "psychic experiences." Far too many scientists have this attitude toward the psychic and this was part of what I was trying to convey to Alexis in one of my postings a month or two ago. Daniel > Date: 4 Jun 1996 03:41:56 GMT > From: mike@cellbio.wustl > Subject: Re: Soul Travel: Subjective or Objective? In article <19960603103233.aaaa0007F@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>, Joseph Polanik wrote: > you are obviously ignoring cases where people report, as part of their > so-called Near-Death Experience, details of the resucitation procedure > that occurred after the body became inert (or 'temporarily dead'). In > the same vein are cases where the experiencer left the immediate > vicinity of the body and noticed something unusual which was > incorporated into the report and later verified by others. > > in your many years of sifting thru the evidence you surely came across > cases such as this. perhaps you felt that this evidence didn't meet your > standards as to type, quality or quantity. To a trained observer, this is not evidence, it is closer to fable, story telling or wishful thinking. People lie, exaggerate, bend the truth, and convince themselves of things that never happened. There are perfectly rational explanations for all of these cases when one takes the reality of human fallibility into consideration. When the heart stops beating, the brain continues to function for many minutes. If it didn't the people really would be dead and would not be capable of being resuscitated. Visual and auditory sensory inputs during this state can be processed and translated into dream like images. Nothing mysterious about it at all. We know that the perception of disembodiment can be induced by sensory deprivation and electrical stimulation. Hypoxia probably induces a similar state under the right circumstances. Trivial. These events are real alright--lucid dreams and hallucinations--they have been reproduced in the laboratory by electrical probing, sensory deprivation, drugs, and by those who can induce lucid dreams. > so we are left with the supposed 'fact' that tests conducted in the > laboratory have yielded meagre results. if this is indeed a fact > it would invite the evaluation of the our standards and expectations as > indicated above. I love this. Perhaps I will use it for our next manuscript that is criticized by reviewers--Your standards of proof are too high! What do you want, real evidence or something? Of course the military found no evidence for remote viewing, because it is nothing but dreaming. That says it all. If it were real, you can bet your life that it would be exploited in business and by the military. > stimulating certain areas of the brain can produce reports of phenomena > similar to phenomena reported in OBE reports. even assuming the stimulus > is generating a new experience rather than evoking a memory of an old > one, these brain probing experiments don't prove as much as you seem to > think. They provide a perfectly rational, mundane explanation for a phenomenon I am all too familiar with, both subjectively and objectively. The evidence is overwhelming that these are nothing but dreams. That is obvious to anyone who has truly explored it first-hand with a true scientific attitude. > > Ah! there *is* a recurring phenomenology --- when it suits you to > recognize it. Again, well known to those who have thoroughly explored this state. Trivial. If you are obsessed with eck masters before you fall asleep, what are you likely to dream of, chopped liver? Use your head. > > and Twitchell's proclaimed experiences have none of these. > > this is a wild claim for which you have provided no support. suppose you > supply us with references to material which you think illustrates the > recurring phenomenology and with references to material which you think > shows that Paul's 'proclaimed experiences have none of these.' You can read Monroe's first book and several of the faq's available on the net on astral projection to get a feel for some of the recurrent themes. For example, the vibratory state accompaned by paralysis--a well known phenomenon to sleep researchers called sleep paralysis that accompanies rapid eye movement dreaming--exactly what you would predict would occur during a lucid dream. Others are right out of the older projection literature (silver cords) and are experienced only by people who are familiar with that literature, i.e., they experience exactly what they expect to experience--that's what lucid dreaming is all about. ......... From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 4 19:12:29 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 15:12:29 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606042017.QAA07724@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: MArtin's FAQ W When do we start? or rather when do we continue? I like what I hear from Martin, & believe it's very necessary if Theosophy isn't going to turn quickly into an interesting old fossil. State Theosophy in a more modern idiom, so people don't have to spend a lot of th energy first trying to decipher Victorian word meanings, instead of being able to tackle the cogent ideas behind them right away. Many people don't have the luxury of that much spare time. Absorb into Theosophy the newer modernday findings, which, I believe would be mmostly an expansion & adaptation of the body of knowledge we already have, as it can be applied to modern findings. HPB continually quotes her contemporaries. Well, let's quote ours, where they fit in, and they do, many of them, and where wwe disagree with many of them. Emphasize the most those parts of Theosophy which are of the most interest to peiople's search today. Liesel Member TI From 72662.1335@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 15:25:44 1996 Date: 05 Jun 96 11:25:44 EDT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@CompuServe.COM> Subject: OBES are hallucinations Message-Id: <960605152543_72662.1335_IHD107-6@CompuServe.COM> Hi everybody: I want to comment on Daniel's posting: < I thought Alexis, Jerry S., JRC and others might be interested with the "attitude" displayed by Dr. Mueckler towards "psychic experiences." Far too many scientists have this attitude toward the psychic and this was part of what I was trying to convey to Alexis in one of my postings a month or two ago.> I feel left out! I think some of you know that I scientifically study the OBE/Astral projection/Lucid dream experience. I'd like to add my 2 cents worth and try to cool this unnecessary bickering back and forth between occultists and scientists. In a nutshell, Daniel has a bad attitude for ignoring the evidence that Dr. Mueckle discusses. The ideas Dr. Mueckle states ARE well established facts and it is only by being uninformed that one is not aware of them. On the other hand Dr. Mueckle also has a bad attitude. His sarcastic attitude and his constant reference to "trivial explanations" for OBEs as a form of dreaming seem to me to indicate that he is quite unimaginative and does not appear to appreciate some of the subtleties involved. His sarcasm and cockiness are also in bad taste and do little by way of inducing intelligent conversation. Nonetheless, within the scope of present knowledge Dr. Mueckle has the facts on his side. The slant I have since taken is that the scientific and occult views can be reconciled only when scientists become deeper in their thinking and, for example, realize that dreams are by no means trivial experiences but imply vast subtlties about the nature of the brain. And on the other hand, occultists must learn to be better informed as to the status of current knowlege. Many occult ideas were formulated in the late 1800s and many have since been simply shown to be false. Our scientific understanding has mushroomed massivly since the days of HPB or CW Leadbeater and no amount of attachment ot outdated ideas can change the growth in knowledge that has occured in the past 100 years. So, if both sides could only make the effort to meet in the middle, perhaps we could get beyond this pettiness. Thanks for considering my thoughts. Dr. DeGracia From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 19:58:34 1996 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 12:58:34 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605195834.006c8584@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OBES are hallucinations At 12:15 PM 6/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hi everybody: > >I want to comment on Daniel's posting: > >< I thought >Alexis, Jerry S., JRC and others might be interested with the >"attitude" displayed by Dr. Mueckler towards "psychic experiences." >Far too many scientists have this attitude toward the psychic and >this was part of what I was trying to convey to Alexis in one >of my postings a month or two ago. Glad to hear from you Don. As to Dr. Mueckler, I don't know his scientific qualifications, but one thing bothers me about him as I mentioned in a previous message. He is a disillusioned devotee! I have, in the course of my own investigations into these matters long ago researched Eckankar and dismissed it. What was he doing as a member? Why did he suddenly leave? Was it personal or a sudden reassertion of his scientific knowledge. In his case, considering his language and attitude (to which you refer) are we dealing with scientific objections or a vendetta? > >I feel left out! I think some of you know that I scientifically study the >OBE/Astral projection/Lucid dream experience. I'd like to add my 2 cents worth >and try to cool this unnecessary bickering back and forth between occultists and >scientists. Actually Don, the "bickering back and forth" amy not be entirely unnecessary because both sides may learn from it. You know that Blavatsky's original goals in the foundation of the theosophical movement was the reconciliation of "science and religion". > >In a nutshell, Daniel has a bad attitude for ignoring the evidence that Dr. >Mueckle discusses. The ideas Dr. Mueckle states ARE well established facts and >it is only by being uninformed that one is not aware of them. My only problem with the "scientific facts" behind the statements of Dr. Mueckler is based upon the fairly obvious perception that they are based upon the a priori rejection of ANY AND ALL extra-physical or trans-physical phenomena. If certain evidence is excluded a priori, then the "facts" no matter how well established they may seem, are at least potentially incomplete. Another problem with citing "scientific facts" which others may point out to you is that they are "facts" right now, they may change at any time. i.e. who quotes Euclid today? Scientific "facts' go in and out of fashion almost as frequently as hemlines. Now as far as Daniel is concerned, I am sure he's as well-informed on these subjects as anyone (if not more so). Perhaps the fact of the matter is that he doesn't agree. Unless I'm very wrong Daniel is quite well-qualified in this field. He is hardly to be seen as an "unthinking occultist" if his past messages are any criterion > >On the other hand Dr. Mueckle also has a bad attitude. His sarcastic attitude >and his constant reference to "trivial explanations" for OBEs as a form of >dreaming seem to me to indicate that he is quite unimaginative and does not >appear to appreciate some of the subtleties involved. His sarcasm and cockiness >are also in bad taste and do little by way of inducing intelligent conversation. Regarding the above: As I said in my last message on this subject: "Hell hath no fury like a disillusioned devotee". > >Nonetheless, within the scope of present knowledge Dr. Mueckle has the facts on >his side. The slant I have since taken is that the scientific and occult views >can be reconciled only when scientists become deeper in their thinking and, for >example, realize that dreams are by no means trivial experiences but imply vast >subtlties about the nature of the brain. And on the other hand, occultists must >learn to be better informed as to the status of current knowlege. Many occult >ideas were formulated in the late 1800s and many have since been simply shown to >be false. Our scientific understanding has mushroomed massivly since the days >of HPB or CW Leadbeater and no amount of attachment ot outdated ideas can >change the growth in knowledge that has occured in the past 100 years. Most of what you say above is true from the scientific or materialistic viewpoint. But to occultists (who are not all simply mystics) while the brain is an immensely interesting thing, it is not the most interesting thing. To metaphysicians it is the mind which is important. To most non-devotee metaphysicians the proper analogy is that the brain is equivalent to a CPU (a fantastically efficient CPU) while the mind is the operator of the CPU. This is a perception of reality that is, I think, not amenable to either scientific proof or disproof. At least not in our time. Most basic occult ideas were originally formulated many centuries prior to the 18th century, they were restated into more "modern" terminology in the 18th century. Most popular "occultism" is just silly fairy tales and was never anything else. But there is a solid core of theory and precepts that are not popular and are just as valid today as they were when originally formulated. But as they deal with matters spiritual they are not, and never will be totally amenable to "scientific proof" at least not in the current state of scientists. Any investigation, of any subject, must be open and unbiased. As long as m\so many of the scientists who decry metaphysics are members of the Zetetic society and write articles for Skeptic Magazine, they can hardly be viewed as any less biased than the most fervent occultist. > >So, if both sides could only make the effort to meet in the middle, perhaps we >could get beyond this pettiness. It seems to me that people holding two almost entirely dichotomous opinions can only "meet in the middle" when and if neither side feels threatened. The pettiness will disappear when the anger and fear does and not before. > >Thanks for considering my thoughts. > >Dr. DeGracia > Your thoughts are very important. To some degree, they represent the majority opinion. Alexis dolgorukii From 72662.1335@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 21:50:20 1996 Date: 05 Jun 96 17:50:20 EDT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@CompuServe.COM> Subject: OBEs are hallucinations Message-Id: <960605215020_72662.1335_IHD142-1@CompuServe.COM> Alexis: Thank you for the comments to my thoughts. Let me respond in turn. Let's begin here: At a superficial level this is indeed true. As you probe deeper into my understanding though, I don't know if such a statement can apply. I don't know anything about Dr. Mueckler and only heard of him in Daniel's post, so I cannot say anything at all about what drives or motivates him. <. Another problem with citing "scientific facts" which others may point out to you is that they are "facts" right now, they may change at any time. i.e. who quotes Euclid today? Scientific "facts' go in and out of fashion almost as frequently as hemlines. > This statement is observant and accurate to a degree, however, it is incomplete. Science has a cummullative nature about it. Most mathematicians today continue to quote Euclid because many of Euclid's ideas forn the corner stone of math. NonEuclidean geometry (which Einstein used to forumlate Relativity theory) is not a refutation of Euclid - it is an extension of Euclid and would not exist without Euclid's contributions. This is generally true of all science. I am a chemist. I do not quote 18th century chemist like Lavosier or Dalton, but everything I do in my lab implies what these people discovered two centuries ago. What I do in my lab would be impossible without their contributions. So, the nuts and bolts of science are not really fashion at all, nor are they arbitrary. They are techniques and viewpoints that serve as foundations to build upon. Part of this attitude amongst scientists reflects the historical roots of science: science grew as a counter-cultural movement to the unthinking dogma of the Medieval Church. And, like a brash teenager trying to proove his own, science rejected its connection to spirutal truths. Although, this is not true in general. Many great scientists, including Newton, Einstein, and many others were imminently spiritual men, and saw science in a spritual light. Another part of this attitude has to do with finding the least complicated explanation. Science is driven by Ocam's razor, which is to find the simplest explanation for a phenomena. When this fails, more complicated explanations are then invoked. Necessity drives this process, not fancy or speculation. The history of science is replete with such examples. Thus, to attribute OBEs as phenomena created by the brain is the simplest explanation, and also the most obvious. It is a starting point, and a good one that has worked well for the past several decades in which this paradigm has been used. Again however, Dr. Mueckler simply has a bad attitude to come off as if these issues are all black and white. Even Manly Hall himself has said that we should not try to invoke super-physical explanations when a physical explanation will suffice. This of course is different from rejecting spirituality in any sense, which is a mistake many scientists make. Scientists who flat out reject spirituality simply expose their ignorance and lack of depth and subtlety. < But to occultists (who are not all simply mystics) while the brain is an immensely interesting thing, it is not the most interesting thing. To metaphysicians it is the mind which is important.> This is an unfortunate viewpoint alexis. You are making a dichotomy where, in fact, there is none. It is also unfortunate that occultists feel justified to ignore the knowldege of the brain without first studying it and trying to understand it. I used to hold this attitude, but I was force to learn about the brain in my PhD program, and what i learned so fascinated me that I now am enamored with the study of the brain. I can literally think of no more interesting topic. The brain is a vast mystery and to dismiss its study so nonchalantly only reveals that you are not well informed about our current state of knowledge of the brain and mind. The brain and mind are two different views of the exact same thing. The mind is not different from the brain. The mind is a process created by the brain. Now, this does not need to imply that there is no mind that transcends brains, as for example, with the occult idea of the mental plane. From another angle, God's mind created not only the brain, but the entire physical world. All I am saying is do not sell yourself short by rejecting ideas with which you have no familiarity. If your brain was to become damaged either by trauma, stroke or other means, you would quickly appreciate the significance of the brain in the action of the mind. I hope it never comes to this and that you can simply open your mind to current knowledge and discover intellectually just how important the brain is for the operation of your mind. Again, such thinking is a vast oversimplification. There is nothing wrong if you wish to allow your thinking to exist at such a simple level. However, when others offer more sophisticated views, I would hope you would at least listen to what they have to say. The brain/mind is very, very different from a computer. I don't have time to go into this but if you want references to authors who discuss this matter, I can happily send them to you. The brain controls itself. Your sense of control of your thoughts, emotions and actions are in fact due to a specific part of your cerebral cortex. There are thousands of documented cases of people who have sustained damage to these regions of the cortex and lost control of themselves and experienced drastic changes in personality. I use to believe that the brain was merely a channel for our non-physical self. I no longer belief this idea. I consider the idea, but I do not believe it. What I do know, and have seen in hospital settings is that people who experience brain damage undergo drastic changes in their mental and psychological functioning. To me, the crux of the matter always rested on dreams. Dreams, supposedly are our nonphysical experiences, or at least some of them are. The fact is however, when people suffer symptoms of brain damage, these symptoms are also present in their dreams. If our dreams were, say, our astral body acting semi-independently of the physical body, there is no reason to believe that brain damage would affect the action of the astral body. However, brain damage symptoms do occur in the person's dreams, indicating that dreams themselves are a product of the brain. This idea leads to a very different line of thought than the traditional occult view that seperates physical and nonphyscal bodies. Instead of simply rejecting this view because it appears to counterdict what you presently believe, I would recommend opening up to this view, even if it does challange your present believes. I have discovered, and unfortunately, again do not have time to dwell on this issue, that the idea that the brain creates our conscious awareness is not contradictory to traditional occult ideas of transcendental realities. however, by mixing the two viewpoints, a new viewpoint emerges that is substantially different than either alone, and, not suprisingly, is a view in complete harmony with the great mystical and religious truths of the aeons. Again, I would only suggest you familiarize yourself with the evidence. When you see the state of our current knowledge, you will come to appreciate that such statements as this are no longer applicable. < But as they deal with matters spiritual they are not, and never will be totally amenable to "scientific proof" at least not in the current state of scientists. Any investigation, of any subject, must be open and unbiased> And the flip side to this is, again, that you, or people with similar interests and background, make the effort to familiarize yourself with current evidence and thinking. You will see that scientific ideas are not biased, that they are driven by necessity (for example, trying to determine how to treat a victum of brain damage). You must ask yourself: as an occultiust who makes a claim to understanding the human constitustion, how would you personally deal with a person who has suffered brain damage? How would your ideas be of practical value in helping such a person? This is really worth thinking about. So, I will close here. Again, I thank you for the exachange of ideas. My best regards and wishes. Dr. DeGracia (But everybody just calls me "Don"...really!) From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Jun 6 00:28:44 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:28:44 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606060028.RAA08908@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Especially directed to Don G. Alexis D OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations TO: Don G. and Alexis and of course everyone else interested: Some of what is written below was posted on Theos-l about 2 months ago. Most of it was written by Dr. Mike M. and gives in greater detail his view on OOBEs ,etc. [All of this is taken from alt.religion.eckankar, a USENET discussion group]. I am posting it again to give more detail in our present theos-l & theos-buds discussion on this subject. Daniel FIRST A QUOTE FROM DR. M: >As someone who has experienced this phenomenon of OOBE=soul travel=astral >projection=lucid dreaming for some 25 years (they are all the same), I >have discussed this in detail before on this newsgroup. Neither I nor >anyone else has ever produced evidence for knowledge at a distance during >a lucid dream or out of the body experience. Period. Including tests >conducted under laboratory conditions. Experiments with brain probing >indicate that the OOBE is a mental state that can be reproduced by the >excitation of certain regions of the brain. William Martens wrote to Dr. Mike M.: >>> >>> Since, in your opinion, the inner worlds that some people experience >>> while they are alive on this physical world are nothing but random >>> neurons firing in the cerebral cortex of the physical brain is it also >>> true (in your oppinion) that the inner worlds that some people believe >>> they will go to after this life are really non-existant as well? >>> >>> In other words is this one physical life all that you personally expect >>> to experience? >>> >>> Do you believe in any kind of continuance of your essential self to >>> survive the physical death of your body? Mike M. replies to Martens as follows: >>There is no reason or necessity to postulate the existence of anything >>supernatural to explain "inner" experiences. There are clear >>physiological explanations for these sensory experiences and nothing >>mysterious about them at all. > >>Neither have I seen any evidence for the continued existence of >>consciousness after the brain ceases to function. On the other hand, there >>is abundant evidence for the contrary belief. > >>The universal nature of religion is perfectly understandable in biological >>terms. The "purpose" of a biological entity is to survive and pass on its >>genes to its offspring. The longer an individual survives (within >>limits), the greater is the chance it will successfully pass on its >>genes. With the development of self-awareness in the human along with the >>level of intelligence necessary to recognize the finite nature of the >>individual organism, humans developed religion and the belief in some form >>of immortality as a psychological expression of the "selfish" gene. In >>simpler terms, any being that is intelligent enough to recognize its own >>finite nature will naturally put up a psychological defense, i.e., >>religion. That seems self-evident. Self-survival is the strongest instinct >>of all. > >>I recommend "The Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick (Simon and >>Schuster). Crick shared the Nobel Prize with Jim Watson for the discovery >>of the helical structure of DNA. For the past 25 years or so he has >>dedicated himself to the study of the neurosciences. The "astonishing >>hypothesis" is just that consciousness is the result of the activity of >>billions of interacting neurons. Crick's wry humor is that this is only >>astonishing to layman, most of whom carry some sort of religious engrams. > >>I don't see how a profound understanding of biology is compatible with >>religious belief. I have only seen them coexist in a very few scientists >>who somehow manage to completely divorce their early religious training >>from all logical scrutiny. > >>If you believe in survival after death, what is it that makes you believe that? Daniel Caldwell quotes 2 paragraphs from the Mike M.'s above answer and then adds several comments and questions: >>In [above] article, Dr. Mike M. wrote: >>> >>>There is no reason or necessity to postulate the existence of anything >>>supernatural to explain "inner" experiences. There are clear >>>physiological explanations for these sensory experiences and nothing >>>mysterious about them at all. > >>>Neither have I seen any evidence for the continued existence of >>>consciousness after the brain ceases to function. On the other hand, there >>>is abundant evidence for the contrary belief. >>Mike, how much do you know about parapsychology? Are you aware of the data of >>this field of endeavor? From my point of view, there is *some* evidence that >>would indicate that consciousness may transcend the brain and in fact can >>sometimes operate outside the confines of the physical body. I am not >>saying that the parapsychological data proves such contentions. All I am >>saying is that this data puts a new slant on the biological data. How aware >>are you of this parapsychological data? Or are you the "typical" kind of >>skeptic of the CSICOP variety? > >>It would be interesting to see what David Lane's views are on this subject. >>My impression is that although he is skeptical of the claims of Eckankar, Lane >>believes that consciousness transcends the body, etc. I may be wrong. HINT! >>HINT! > >>Mike, have you read Dr. Robert Almeder's DEATH AND PERSONAL SURVIVAL: THE >>EVIDENCE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH? Almeder is a philosopher and approaches the >>subject with an open mind. I could give you a whole list of good books that >>are not written by religious or new age minded people but by critically minded >>people who have looked at the evidence and have felt that there is something >>mysterious about the mind and that science has not fully explained the mind >>nor its relationship to the brain, the nervous system and the body. > >>Are you as skeptical of your own "beliefs" and "conclusions" as you are of the >>beliefs of the Eckists, religionists, and paranormalists? In other words, are >>you a Zetetic skeptic? Are you aware of the writings of Dr. Marcello Truzzi? > >>There is a excellent FAQ written on parapsychology by Dean Radin and several >>other parapsychologists. It is available on the WWW and you can find it if >>you do a search using the word "parapsychology." I will try to find its >>location on the WWW and post it later. > >>Daniel H. Caldwell > > Mike M. responds to Daniel's comments and questions by reposting what he had previously written in response to Glen's questions. >I am reposting this in response to Daniel Caldwell's questions: > > > I will answer Glen's questions, because it just may open up some eyes >and ears. Not those of the eck participants on this newsgroup, but of the >lurkers, who have always been the object of my posts. Some of this will >be repetitive to old timers on this newsgroup. > > First, the accusation is that I am somehow afraid of my visions, >experiences, etc., and therefore place a materialistic slant on them. It >seems self-evident that this explanation doesn't make any sense. I >started having OOBEs at the age of 15 or16 prior to my exposure to >eckankar. At that time, I was absolutely convinced that they were "real" >in the same sense that most eckists wrongfully interpret these phenomena. >I joined eckankar because it appeared to explain and to place these >experiences into a pleasing (if somewhat simple-minded) religious context >(I was raised a Catholic and fully believed in a Supreme Being, etc.). My >OOB experiences were self-induced after reading the first edition of >"Journeys Out of the Body" by Robert Monroe in 1970. Around this time, I >also met and befriended a professional psychic and medium. I spent much >of my last two years in high school with this gentleman, with whom I had >many interesting experiences. I mention this only to illustrate that I was >totally and completely "sold" on psychic phenomena and the supernatural. >I was fully one of "You" out there. I could not even imagine life without >a spiritual/psychic side. I initially wanted to go to college at Duke in >order to study parapsychology, because Duke had the only semi-respectable >psychic research institute in the country (I ended up going to another >university). > > After I began my intensive training in the sciences in college, leading >through graduate school, postgraduate training, and beyond, I began to >experiment on myself and to evaluate my OOB experiences, read the >scientific literature (such as it was) on this subject and related >phenomena. At the beginning, I was still a totally committed eckist, in >fact, a "leader" in the area I lived in. As my knowledge of science and >the scientific method grew along with my evaluation of my own experiences >and the experiences of others as documented in the scientific literature, >it became clear that the OOBE and so-called mystical experience have a >completely materialistic explanation in the neuron. No evidence for >knowledge at a distance has ever been demonstrated in a properly designed >experiment. Period. Despite what friend Gunnar would have us believe. He >appears to have just started his examination of these data-- I have had >nearly 25 years of it, and have met and spoken to JB Rhine, among others. >I have communicated with many over the years who have had some degree of >control over the OOB state. I was a member of the Monroe Institute for a >year or two in the late seventies (that just means I took one of their >home courses). Neither I nor anyone I have talked to has produced one >shred of evidence that the OOBE is anything but a lucid dream or >hypnagogic experience resulting from the firing of neurons. That is, no >one has produced any evidence that one can obtain information at a >distance in this state. Certainly not the Monroe Institute, despite their >sincerity and efforts. There has been nothing but negative results after >many decades of work on the part of many dedicated investigators around >the World. After so much negative data, in any other branch of science we >would say--enough already. > > Of course, I am very familiar with the *claims* of positive >results--these are a combination of statistical blips, wishful thinking, >sloppy, uncontrolled experiments, faulty equipment, and forgery and >fakery. Indeed, the entire field of parapsychology has been rife with >these unfortunate occurrences. Every time the so-called positive >experiments have been repeated by others using a proper protocol, the >"positive" results vanish. If you saw some of the so-called "positive" >data, most of you would wince and say, so what? We are not talking about >demonstrating the existence of the soul--rather, observing something like >a tiny deviation from the statistical norm using Psi cards or the like. A >Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Ernst Rutheford, once said--if you have to >use statistics to prove something--go back and design the experiment >properly! If a certain type of experiment is repeated often enough, the >outcome will come out "positive" a certain percentage of the time. > > How have I reached my conclusions about mystical phenomena? By an >objective evaluation of all of the subjective and objective evidence >available to me. It would take several volumes to describe all of the >evidence I have sifted through and evaluated. In a way, I was fortunate to >have intensive training in the scientific method and extensive experience >with the the Out-of-Body state. It appears to me that few if any eckists >on this group have actually had OOBEs as described by Monroe, Muldoon, >Schwann, and others. Monroe's descriptions are the least colored, but even >he embellished them considerably. For one thing, he made up the only >incident in his first book that might have provided some sort of >semi-objective evidence for the "reality" of his experiences (the pinching >episode was made up for those of you who have read the book--see Rogo's >book on Astral Projection). The pre-OOBE vibratory state described by >Monroe is a well-known phenomenon called sleep paralysis that occurs >during dreaming. The fact that Monroe, I, and, and many others can become >conscious during sleep paralysis (which precedes the OOBE), illustrates >the dream nature of the experience. This has also been demonstrated in the >laboratory by the use of EEGs on subjects during their OOBEs. You can look >up the data yourselves. > > I have also had the more "mystical" type of experience. It's really no >different. I have described some of my inner experiences (dreams) >involving Twitchell and Gross before on this newsgroup, and the fact that >Gross asked me to contribute some of my experiences to the aborted >biography Brad Steiger started working on. As I recall, one of my >experiences (dreams) is actually reported in one of the eck discourses. >All neurological gobbledegook. Fun, but mundane. This is also a >hypnagogic state where one gains partial control over dream-like images. >These are mixed with subconscious desires and images. One can hear, see, >and experience, virtually anything, including other "planes", sounds, >masters, etc. I believe most people can learn to induce these >experiences. But it takes enormous willpower, patience, and something few >people have--lots of time. I spent a couple of hours a day for a year or >solearning to "catch hold of" the hypnagogic state. I could do it because >I was a teenager with all the free time on my hands that I needed. > > Am I somehow afraid of the Truth? That is not logical and sounds like >classic psychological projection. Who in their right mind would be afraid >of immortality? It was a great intellectual struggle for me to break free >of my ingrained religious beliefs. Indeed, this takes a great deal of >courage from anyone. What doesn't take a lick of courage is to accept >other peoples explanation of YOUR experience, which is what every eckist >does. I did it, too, because it was easy. They tell you exactly what you >want to hear. How many of you have gone out on your own and attempted to >objectively evaluate your "inner" experiences and directly challenged your >most cherished beliefs? On the other hand, how many of you accept whatever >Klemp tells you as fact? Have you REALLY proven it to yourself? You don't >have to put up a facade. These explanations are provided by those ignorant >of physiology, the same way the Shamans used to provide religious >explanations for mental illness, the stars in the night sky, etc. As >science has advanced, these silly explanations have been swept under the >rug by all religions as hidden embarassments. One by one. Do you want to >look under the rug forever for your explanations? > > What do my own personal inner experiences prove or disprove? >Absolutely nothing. The objective data concerning the phenomena in >question are more than sufficient to identify them as neurological states >and to disprove the supernatural hypothesis. I happened to be in the >unusual position of having the scientific training, to have the desire, >and to have developed the subjective abilities to put these phenomena to a >personal test. That is all. > > Ask yourself what evidence you really and truly have that confirms your >religious beliefs. How convincing is that evidence? Would it convince a >dispassionate observer? Would you stake your child's life on it? Would >trained scientific observers with no interest at stake in the outcome draw >the same conclusions? Can you imagine life without immortality, without a >soul, without a master--with only organic molecules in a self-replicating >system? A life that ends when the brain ceases to function? I have >imagined it both ways, and am forced to accept the correct interpretation. >If you can't even imagine it both ways, how can you begin to go beyond >mere religious faith? > >To paraphrase an eck master: You can DISprove it for yourself--if you are >bold and adventuresome. If you are not, then remain an eckist. > >A closing prediction: The very youngest eckists among us will live to see >the day neurobiologists can explain the so-called mystical experience >(i.e., hallucination, lucid dream) at the cellular/molecular levels. No >question about it. Eckankar will have passed into oblivion long before >this, however. Or perhaps eckists will transform into a new type of drug >culture, where one takes a specific neurotransmitter to induce a specific >"experience". > >One last thing. It is certainly possible that my materialistic views are >completely wrong. Scientific theories are constantly in a state of flux >as we gather more data. I would place the odds that I am wrong in this >regard at one in a thousand or less. Religion has been given a fair shake >for millenia, and has proven to be a miserable failure at explaining >anything. The further we advance in our knowledge of the universe, the >more religious viewpoints have to be abandoned. The odds are getting less >and less every day. > End of Mike M.'s comments and THE END OF THIS TRANSMISSION From jem@vnet.net Thu Jun 6 01:01:50 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:01:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199606060101.VAA18805@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: The Universal Family of Theosophy hi - I am (re)posting this epistle by JRC for reference in discussions which I hope may be of interest within this list. This was first posted on theos-L with little response. I think it has relevance for discussion on "Buds" as to the nature of Theosophy for the coming generation(s). the post is a reprint except for a minor deletion of some material in brackets ( [..] ) which were not relevent :-) peace - john e. mead ================== >Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:54:51 -0600 (MDT) >From: JRC >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: The Universal Family of Humanity >Message-ID: > > [A long one folks (-:)] > It has, for some time now, been my belief that the concept >of the formation of the nucleus of a universal family of humanity >is the very core of modern Theosophy, the most profound idea >within the Theosophical movement, the movement's "true north" ... >that the compass of every theosophical sect ought to point >towards to maintain its stability, its focus, and *its >relationship to the foundational purpose of its existence*. > Even further, I believe that the *reason* modern Theosophy >appears to be such a mess, has splintered into a hundred >different factions, is irrelevant to and largely ignored by the >humanity it was begun to serve, and has withdrawn into itself as >a turtle into its shell, is because its animating idea - *The >Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of Humanity* has >been buried and forgotten ... replaced by small sects of people >taking slices of the current, little tributaries, and attempting >to make of them the whole of Theosophy; by people unable to >resist the terrible selfishness present in the *personal* desire >to be admitted into a "Mystery School" (a failing the Masters >fought - unsuccessfully - from the very beginning of the >society); by people caught in the snare of secret-chasing, >unknowingly chained by the deep delights of wrestling with ornate >philosophy and bound to the addictive pleasures of "insight" >apparently gained therefrom. > The First Object (I'll be so bold as to assert (-:) is much >more than simply the statement of a nice sentiment, more than >something to pay lip service to, to keep around like a pet >goldfish ... in the room but usually ignored ... no, it is the >tip of an idea so immense, so earth-shattering, so *kinetic* that >if modern Theosophy were *truly* commit to it as an *Object*, >that is, as a *goal* - the theosophical current would virtually >instantaneously spring back to life. > We were, I believe, as Theosophists, handed an *opportunity* >to accomplish a remarkable task on behalf of the spiritual >kingdom on this planet. The *gift* we were given was the *chance >to serve on a global scale* ... and all the "teachings", the >esoterica, were *not* given for our *personal benefit*, and we >certainly do not have some sort of charge to "keep them alive" >(how ridiculous - Those Who Keep Them can release them to whom >they want, in any form they desire, at any time they wish) - the >"occult" knowledge is but little scraps of an impossibly huge >body of knowledge, scraps *intended to serve the accomplishment >of the Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of >Humanity*. The purported "next religion" about which there is so >much argument? Look in the First Object and *it is there* ... and >not only that, but the "keys" to reading the theosophical >esoterica are *also* buried in it. > I understand these are bold claims ... and in fact they do >not fit into *any* of the current theosophical sects, but bear >with me (-:) - I'll try to support them ... to unpack what (IMO) >are the first few layers of the remarkable idea/mission embedded >in the First Object. No one may accept the totality of the >premise ... but at least a discussion of the First Object - an >idea the Adepts clearly and continually stated to be of prime >importance to them - will be worth a bit of discussion. And >curiously enough (IMO), of all the intense discussions I've seen >in Theosophy over the years, discussion of the minutia of karma, >of reincarnation, of the globes and races and rounds, of occult >theory and occult practice in all its nuances, I've seen barely >even an ounce of attention, a moment of intellectual energy, >expended on understanding what the Formation of the Nucleus of a >Universal Family of Humanity might mean. Its depths have *never* >been explored, its door never even opened - yet this was the idea >the Adepts held to be the one thing that *could not vary* >regardless of what Sinnet, Hume, or even HPB wanted to do with >Theosophy. > And I suppose the best way to start would be to frame, in >succinct a fashion as possible, what I believe to be the >*foundational vibration of the theosophical current, inspired by >Adepts and initiated by HPB*: > > The Adepts, understanding with foresight the century we are >now in the midst of, and grasping the stunning burst of >intellectual development - with all its power and its delusions - >that was immanent, and understanding as well that the chief >characteristic of the intellect is the *differentiating function* >(i.e., that it is the "great slayer" of the (unified) "real", the >*source* of the "heresy of separateness"), understanding that it >was a *required stage of evolution*, but that it harbored >tremendous dangers, and desirous of aiding in that evolution by >trying to mitigate the great pain inherent in the delusions of >the intellect, sought then a means of *immunizing* our race >against the worst of the viral infections the spirit of >differentiation (that is the core of the intellect) had almost >inevitably to cause. > The source of the *danger* exists in the very core of the >intellect - whose first and most fundamental sentiment is "I, not >I". It *seeks* to differentiate, to pull apart what is whole, to >*magnify* differences, to see how many pieces compose the atom, >how many different hierarchies can be named as composing the >natural world, how many categories it can create to demonstrate >how *different* humans are from one another. (Want to see this in >action? *Every* race, every philosophy (*including Theosophy!), >and every religion has produced a "ranking system" in which its >members are the *highest*, and all others descend "downward" from >the defined peak). Its development, for aeons possessed by but a >few every generation, was on the verge of becoming widely >diffused. Its powers are unprecedented - it can cure diseases, >produce food, clothing and shelter for everyone on earth, but its >downside is virulent. And the anti-virus, the immunizing agent, >had to (of necessity) be of the nature of the virus - i.e., had >to be *an idea* ... an idea *as basic and powerful as the >predilection to say "I, not-I", but *diametrically opposed*. > > "To form a nucleus of a universal family of humanity, >*without distinction* of race, creed, sex, caste or color." > > This, this remarkable idea, *is* the "anti-virus". In a >world now completely deluged under the effects of "Us *vs.* >Them", it was to be a powerful, focussed and deliberate >articulation of the sentiment "Us *and* Them". But the means of >introducing it could not be simply to state it - various forms of >it had been stated for *millennia* with little effect. This >merely had the effect of a doctor *telling* a patient they were >going to get some medicine. To actually *inject it* into the body >of humanity, it would require *a group of humans ... not Adepts, >*humans*, to *actualize* the idea within the confines of the >human civilization*. At least some minority of members of *our >kingdom* had to have the courage, the perseverance, the >tremendous creativity required to *begin demonstrating what the >human kingdom as a whole would look like *after* it had completed >the development of the mind* ... when it will begin to *resolve >and unify instead of differentiate*. That is, the "anti-virus", >from another perspective, is the *idea that will govern us in the >future*: That we *are* a "universal family of humanity" - and we, >we as *Theosophists*, were handed the golden opportunity to *form >its nucleus* ... to be the *first iteration*, the *seed*. > And yet, the founders (other than HPB) almost to the person >failed to grasp this - either the idea or the opportunity. The TS >itself fell prey almost immediately to the virus itself. But the >idea itself is so powerful that it *remains* the animating agent >behind whatever life is left in the Theosophical current. And not >only that, but precisely those things that are complained about >continuously in theosophy (and certainly on this list) are those >things that constitute the actual living work of the First >Object. (To explain this will take a bit of an articulation of >the first layer of the Object (-:): > > The biggest initial problem is that the First Object is easy >to read, and everyone thinks almost immediately that they >understand it - but look even a bit more closely (with even half >the effort that "karma" is looked at in TS circles (-:) - and >suddenly it appears positively immense in its ramifications. To >accomplish it, and accomplish it *genuinely*, even upon first >glance indicates some very interesting (and perhaps even >counterintuitive) realizations ... > It has virtually *nothing* to do with "being nice". Notions >like politeness, "reasoned discourse", "manners", "insults", >etc., etc. vary by culture, by race, by personal upbringing, the >exigencies of fate and fortune, and numerous other factors. If we >are talking about a universal family, the first huge idea to be >faced (and great courage indeed it takes to face it) is that >*there is no "correct" mode or style of discourse*. At *every* >layer of personality there *are* differences, and very >substantial ones, between people ... and the era we live in, the >era of mind, has served to do little other than greatly intensify >our perception of those differences. The problem is that for most >of history, the large majority of humans have been used to >assuming that *their acculturated norms are "the" norms*. And >this is the first profound truth embedded in the First Object: To >take it as a *goal* means we must assume the responsibility of >*continually* striving to function *as spiritual entities* ... >that is, at the layers of our own energy systems where >personality level differences *are not relevant*. > This is important. For much of history, different races and >cultures simply did not even come into contact with one another >.. and when they did, either warfare resulted in the domination >of one over the other, or migration happened and the conflicts >ceased because the parties separated - did not remain in relation >to one another. Both of these *avoided the fundamental issue*. In >our current world, with its population explosion and the global >telecommunications net, there *is* no place to go - differences >that have existed since the beginning of exoteric recorded >history must, for the first time, be *resolved*. > The *challenge* of the First Object is to find *the way >out*. On this list both "traditional" avenues have been tried. >Almost everyone has, at one time or another, attempted to >establish a correct "norm" - both for content and mode of >communication ... but in this unique forum, no one has been able >to dominate. And currently, the other "safety valve" is being >tried - a usenet list on one hand, and a completely moderated >list on the other. Both have been generated (IMO) as *reactions* >to the tremendous tension and *pain* that surrounds the formation >of a universal family. While I hope both are successful, my own >*personal* hope is that people stay connected to theos-l ... >because the actual *work* of the First Object is *happening >here*. > Almost no one thinks they are making personal attacks, and >almost everyone feels as though they are subject to them. *WHAT >DOES THIS MEAN?* More to the point (to deeply, if somewhat >gratuitously stroke those that have stuck it out (-:) - it means >that we have *begun the work* - make no mistake, *look* at the >First Object ... race, cultures and personalities are *very* >different, and to actually form the nucleus of a universal family >means that, perhaps for the first time in our race's history ... >a group of people, in whom exist the *entire spectrum of those >differences*, instead of resolving through the domination of one >perspective over another, or simply fleeing one another and >avoiding the issue, have chosen to *stay in relation to one >another for the sake of an ideal* ... and virtually everyone that >has stayed has been virtually *required* to reach for the >spiritual aspects of their being - the only place where *actual* >resolution exists. > Even further, in the very depth and viciousness of the >apparent combat itself is the sign that *genuine* work is being >done. There are multiple personality types on this list . types >that in the human family as a whole have *never* resolved the >differences between them. To be willing to *remain connected*, to >try to dominate if one has the desire to dominate, to resist that >domination if one feels that desire, to be *fully who we are >without any compromise*, and hence face the full pain of the >conflict with others in whom very different beliefs and standards >exist, ... is to begin the *carve the paths that humanity as a >whole may someday follow* ... > We are, my brothers and sisters, playing the biggest game on >earth, and messin' with the very fabric of human reality here - >we are *seeking that road, the hidden perspective, the unknown >solution, through which even the greatest differences may be >somehow resolved - the two "pressure release valves" - domination >or avoidance - that have always been the way resolution has come >(neither of which every *truly* produced a resolution) we have >forgone. Are their not "Alexis' and Liesels, Chucks and Bjorns, >JRCs and Eldons, Daniels and K. Paul Johnsons (etc., etc)" >throughout the world? Not only at the individual level, but even >at the largest scales ... Muslims and Hindus, Catholics and >Protestants, first world and third world, Jews and Iraqis, >Chinese and Taiwanese ... the list goes on ad infinitum. Thing >is, increasingly *no one* is able any longer to either dominate >or avoid. But not one is seeking the means of *genuine* >resolution ... nor even knows how to look. > To pursue the actualization of the First Object is really >the commitment to *discover historically unprecedented patterns >of relationship* ... patterns that literally do not yet exist ... >but that *when discovered in practice* ARE the patterns humanity >is almost desperately (if still virtually unconsciously) seeking >right now. And if we succeed in *finding* those patterns, *we >will have produced the "anti-virus" that can be replicated ... >can be *applied* to some of the oldest and deepest problems >facing our race*. Does it make *sense*, even with this little >brief exploration of the First Object, that the Adepts elevated >the idea of universal family above all others? That they tried, >constantly and throughout their contact with the founders, to >continue to bring people back to that central idea? > While this has probably gone on too long for now, I couldn't >finish without mentioning (IMO) yet another significant point >about the First Object. And that is that the "teachings" given >out are all - if ya think about it - meant to *support* the work >of the First Object? That the Second and Third Objects, the >notions of cosmo and anthrogenesis, and the framework for >understanding how to reach for more interior states of >consciousness are all meant to be used *in the service* of the >work of forming the nucleus for a universal family of humanity? >That to study them alone and for one's personal development is >inherently deeply selfish, to believe that one has, *because one >has studied them*, somehow "above" the rest of humanity ... that >is, to *use* those teachings as a means of *strengthening the >sense of difference rather than understanding them as the means >of discovering the road to resolution* ... is to seriously >*misuse* those teachings? And this, I believe, is why Theosophy >really is in trouble right now - the teachings have been >virtually *severed* from the work of universal brotherhood ... >they are being presented as things that can be (even should be) >learned in and of themselves, rather than as both the larger >paradigm and the personal knowledge needed to actualize the >formation of the universal family. > To anyone that feels like it, might I suggest this "key"? >Any particular aspect of the theosophical you happen to be >studying right now, try studying and meditating on it *assuming >the furtherance of the First Object is the reason that particular >knowledge was released by the Adepts* ... that out of all the >immensity of the wisdom possessed, particular pieces were >deliberately chosen (and others not even mentioned) with a very >specific end in mind - *to fit those forming the nucleus of a >universal family with what they would need to accomplish the >task*. While I cannot say this is the truth, I *can* say that >reading theosophical literature *with the First Object foremost >in mind* changes every bit of it into *something else*, seems to >trigger the intuitive understanding of it at a vastly increased >scale, and provides *the* thread that *links* the immense body of >literature, and suggests connections between apparently >completely unconnected parts. *It functions as a key*. > > Anyway ... `nuff for now. Start taking your shots (har har >har har har har har! Get it?! Tee hee). > With Love, -JRC > ----------------------------------------------------------- John E. Mead jem@vnet.net Theos-L etc. list-owner Member of Theosophical Society in America Member of Theosophy International [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness] ----------------------------------------------------------- From jem@vnet.net Thu Jun 6 01:58:02 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:58:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199606060158.VAA20160@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Universal Family of Humanity jem coments follow: > The Adepts, understanding with foresight the century we are >now in the midst of, and grasping the stunning burst of >intellectual development - with all its power and its delusions - >that was immanent, and understanding as well that the chief >characteristic of the intellect is the *differentiating function* >(i.e., that it is the "great slayer" of the (unified) "real", the >*source* of the "heresy of separateness"), understanding that it >was a *required stage of evolution*, but that it harbored >tremendous dangers, and desirous of aiding in that evolution by >trying to mitigate the great pain inherent in the delusions of >the intellect, sought then a means of *immunizing* our race >against the worst of the viral infections the spirit of >differentiation (that is the core of the intellect) had almost >inevitably to cause. > The source of the *danger* exists in the very core of the >intellect - whose first and most fundamental sentiment is "I, not >I". It *seeks* to differentiate, to pull apart what is whole, to >*magnify* differences, to see how many pieces compose the atom, >how many different hierarchies can be named as composing the >natural world, how many categories it can create to demonstrate >how *different* humans are from one another. (Want to see this in >action? *Every* race, every philosophy (*including Theosophy!), >and every religion has produced a "ranking system" in which its >members are the *highest*, and all others descend "downward" from >the defined peak). Its development, for aeons possessed by but a >few every generation, was on the verge of becoming widely >diffused. Its powers are unprecedented - it can cure diseases, >produce food, clothing and shelter for everyone on earth, but its >downside is virulent. And the anti-virus, the immunizing agent, >had to (of necessity) be of the nature of the virus - i.e., had >to be *an idea* ... an idea *as basic and powerful as the >predilection to say "I, not-I", but *diametrically opposed*. > > "To form a nucleus of a universal family of humanity, >*without distinction* of race, creed, sex, caste or color." > two basic comments: 1) the mind of science is also confronted with transient ideas. their ideas are dependent upon time and perception. the concept of reality is based upon our culture, and ability to persuade others. i.e. we have many facts which are *true*, but do we have a reality fixed by those facts? I venture not. Absolute truth, is only as true as we absolutely know. this is very little. Physics is somewhat of a pop culture: the big hit this year is chaos, but hidden variables may be alive tomorrow. :-) (we only do the best we can). (Dr. Don will have many comments on this, I'm sure) 2) People cannot "hold-up" in their Ivory towers or even their town of "Po-dunk". They have to *relate* to each other. They have to allow each other to exist, or destroy themselves too. Discriminations of the mind are simply folly. However, they make very good signposts: we now have a Christian Coalition claiming a "Culture War". We have Theosophists arguing about things which happened 100 years ago. We have Scientists arguing about everything (including "what is science"). in essence: I agree with JRC --- peace - john e. mead ----------------------------------------------------------- John E. Mead jem@vnet.net Theos-L etc. list-owner Member of Theosophical Society in America Member of Theosophy International [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness] ----------------------------------------------------------- From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 6 02:30:37 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 03:30:37 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: In-Reply-To: <199606060028.RAA08908@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 What a strange discussion! I have had a number of OOB experiences. I have found no *evidence* to suggest that any of them were anything other than what they appeared to be. I have also left my body in full and continuous consciousness from laying down to going out and coming back again. This was my criterion for establishing that the experience was valid and genuine experience, and no kind of dream. For me, this subject is Q.E.D. The answer to the validity of such experiences is to have some and decide for yourself. Theories are just that, and only of practical value when they approximate to the evidence. At best they are reliable working hypotheses. Theory (based upon evidence): Eating keeps you alive. Test. Stop eating, and see what happens. Theory: Humans have free will. Test. Try not to wake up again next time you go to sleep. Decide to stop breathing. Alan :-| --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 5 02:55:44 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:55:44 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606050457.AA00047@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 09:00 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Demon Internet Ltd (UK) serves around 45,000 and is growing. It picked >up alt.theosophy as soon as it appeared. Not many people posting to it >so far though ... I put the TI staement up and: My mail server (don't know the name) picked it up right away, too. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 5 02:55:46 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:55:46 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606050457.AB00047@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Krishnaji At 09:12 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > > As far as I have read, I do not think he ever went any of the *best* >schools. Have you found any specific details of the schools he attended? You can read about his education and just about everything else concerning his upbringing and early experiences, through 1934, in the book "Krishnamurti, The Years of Awakening", by Mary Lutyens. (Perhaps all of you already read this book?) It is an intimate account, not only of K, but of AB, CWL and the evolution, including scandals, that the theosophical movement went through during the years 1904 - 1934. And at the same time it is, IMO, remarkably "objective". There is no such thing as historical objectivity, of course, but ML has made a very good job. She is nonjudgmental, she lets the main characters speak for themselves, as well as relating correspondence and perspectives from various other sources. Many original letters are printed, word by word, and the reader get the impression of "being there". ML was close, not only to K, but also to CWL. She has no ax to grind and is "fair" to the theosophical leaders, although she obviously is most devoted to K himself. The shortcomings, both of AB and CWL, become apparant, without any tone of condemnation or criticism added thereto. Credit is also given and there is an aura of understanding and appreciation in her work. I would say that both the good and the bad is presented without being blown out of proportion. Since the book is written by an insider who had access to a wealth of source material it tasts "genuine". I heartily recommend it to anyone seeking a "historical" understanding of theosophy, including the formative years and experiences of K. Bjorn > >>traveled the world extensively and was given the best >>accomodations. With his training and the publicity he received >>all of his life, I would have found it hard to believe that he >>could have become anything other than a "world renound speaker." >>He was trained to do this, and nothing else. But was >>Krishnamurti really what CWL thought he was? It appears that K. >>did not think so. He rejected the ceremonies, the disciples, and >>the LCC that was supposed to be the vehicle for his message. K. >>turned out to be a young man with enough integrity to reject what >>he did not believe. >> >>On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and >>some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation >>was able to sustain Krishnamurti's stature as a spiritual teacher >>and maintain itself quite well with the income from K's >>books and his continuing lecture tours. During K's lifetime, he >>was able to attract ample wealthy donors that kept him and the >>Foundation in the financial security he grew accustomed to while >>under the care of the Theosophical Society. >> >>So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time >>in all `his' opinions?" I don't know. The odds are that CWL had >>to have been right about some things. But it is clear to me that >>Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right about. >> >>However, I must add that I deeply admire Krishnamurti's integrity >>in rejecting CWL's vision and for leaving the TS. Also, I must >>point out that K's "Pathless land" speech reaches to the heart of >>HPB's teachings and goes directly against CWL's. This, I believe >>to be evidence of real spiritual intuition on Ks part, since it >>is unlikely that K ever read a word of HPB in his life. I like >>K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ? I don't >>think so. > > I don't think any one can be certain about whether he is the >returned Christ or not. If he is the returned Christ, then you have the >problem of the religions like Hindu, Buddhism, Moslem etc rejecting him >because it is not their prophet or Avatar who is returning. Just a thought. >If he really the returned Christ he would have had severe problems from the >various Christian denominations all over world - some accepting and some >rejecting. > > >> >>JHE >> >>------------------------------------------ >> |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | >> |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | >> |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | >> |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | >> ------------------------------------------ > > > > As for his lectures, I have attended many in the mid sixties and >early seventies. But much of what he was trying to say had an effect on me >only later in the mid eighties onwards mainly through his video tapes. This >is especially true of my attitude to life and those of my fellow humans and >other living creatures. I am very grateful for it. > > > ...Ramadoss > > > roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 05:13:41 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:13:41 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605051341.006ba4ac@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Quest (to Doss) At 01:21 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Chuck: You are very right about Quest. When Dorothy was the President, I >even requested that Quest be not sent to me and reduce my annual dues and >promised that the savings will be spent in the local lodge activities. >Nothing happened and the Quest continued to come. >..doss > > >Doss: Doss, you are surely the most determined man. Most people would have given up in disgust long ago. But not you. You are to be commended. It is clear, is it not? That no matter who is President of the TSA, in the last years the member is a matter of no interest at all to the administration in Olcott. No matter how small the request, it is ignored. Important requests such as your requests for election results are arrogantly dismissed. Keep it up, if enough people protest their totalitarian attitudes perhaps eventually they'll listen. But in all probability, we need to have an total election upset with all new officers. How about M.K.Ramadoss for president of the TSA? I am not joking! alexis From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 5 03:13:16 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:13:16 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606050515.AA00211@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Krishnaji At 09:12 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > > I don't think any one can be certain about whether he is the >returned Christ or not. If he is the returned Christ, then you have the >problem of the religions like Hindu, Buddhism, Moslem etc rejecting him >because it is not their prophet or Avatar who is returning. Just a thought. >If he really the returned Christ he would have had severe problems from the >various Christian denominations all over world - some accepting and some >rejecting. I admit that I do have rather strong opinions about this controversial question. When I was a budding seeker I read a few of his books. I took them quite seriously, and "worked" with the message, sometimes sentence by sentence, spending time contemplating what was said. It had a remarkable effect on me. It was like my psychological makeup was being taken apart, like my brain was being dissolved into minute pieces without any apparant relationship to each other. I am sure this had some value, a restructring of values and perceptions was perhaps taking place. In the end, though, I experienced a hollowness, dryness and lifelessness that left me without satisfaction for my soul's deeper longings. This impression came back in a different way when I watched a video lecture by K many years later. What I am looking for "is not there". There is something missing, a dimension of meaning and - a spiritual presence that is absent. I have come to the conclusion that AB and CWL were partially right about K - he was a person of extraordinary spiritual attainment, with the potential of fully realizing his Christhood in that incarnation. I think CWL and AB made a serious mistake by deifying him and creating a cult around his person. I also believe that he left off his path and turned his back away from his mission - and lost his spiritual sponsorship. This being said, I still understand and respect the fact that he has helped many sincere seekers onward. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 05:28:33 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:28:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605052833.006a8e08@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 03:28 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >You are probably right, but it is interesting to see what you base your >opinions on. > >Bjorn > >roxendal@alpinet.net > > >Bjorn: I base my opinions on facts,and only upon facts. I am not entirely sure what you base your opinions on but it would seem, at this juncture, to be emotions and perhaps wishful thinking. As an intellectual, I find many of your positions somewhat eccentric. I have to tell you that I was entirely astonished that you could not see anything pernicious about an association with fascism. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 05:37:10 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:37:10 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605053710.006b6a0c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl At 07:30 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Having never met a wolf in person, I bow to your experience. >I have never met a sheep before either, but I love roast lamb. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA >Heretic >Troublemaker > >With the exception of my beloved Denali who absolutely refuses to eat anything that isn't cooked (preferably with sauce..Lasagne is his absolute favorite) most wolves like their lamb raw and just freshly killed. (Still kicking is the preferred freshness). I make the most wonderful Gigot d'agneau (that's braised Lamb you can eat with a spoon). alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 06:34:50 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:34:50 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605063450.006cb5e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Intelligence Tests At 08:18 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960604055119.006b17ec@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>I.Q. is >>just one bit of information to add to the data-bank, but it's really >>meaningless in making comparisons between people. >>"Rough guide" yes, "accurate chart" no! >> >>alexis > >I have long said that there should be an "E.Q." (Emotional Quotient) to >go along with the I.Q. I walked away from MENSA because all they want >to do is carry on playing mind- and puzzle-games. Raher like the Masons >have to have 33 variants of "Knock, knock, who's there!" > >Alan :-) >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > I have long carefully avoided Mensa because so many of them were losers! 132 is NOT very bright. I was once invited to join the Four sigma Society, where the cut-off was 170, I went to a meeting and found they were all computer programmers "Nerds" in plastic jackets who drove Porches. I told them that they could let me know when they got about ten other artists, I didn't like hanging around with non-creative people. To this date they don't even have one! My favorite story about Four Sigma is this. I have a good friend named Ronland R,Crum. He designed the Viking lander and was a major "Rocket Scientist". The President of the Four Sigma invited him to join and offered to waive the "qualification exam"...Ron's answer was: "George, I don't need a card to prove I'm smart, I've got a little machine up on Mars going beep-beep-beep, that says I'm smart!".... alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 06:42:43 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:42:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605064243.006cf0c0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re CWL & Khrisnaji At 08:37 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Jerry: That was, as usual, a well thought out and interesting posting. Your experience with Krishnamurti exactly parallels mine. I always found him evasive and entirely dogmatic. But I have always admired his intrinsic integrity. That must have been a very hard thing for such a young man to do. As to CWL, I think he made most of his material up out of whole cloth. But anyone can be right some small percentage of the time, the "Law of Averages" assures that. alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 06:43:59 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:43:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605064359.006dc5c8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Clean up At 08:41 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960604054534.006c01dc@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>It seems to me that we must clean up our past, so that we can see clearly >>what needs to be "cleaned up" in our present. It seems to me that simply >>rearranging the present while ignoring the past is like sweeping the dust >>under the carpet. Without the past there is no present, and if the present >>is to be made better than it is, it cannot happen without acknowledging the >>things that have accrued from the past that may be hindering or obstructing >>the present. >> >>alexis > >Er, yes - but that's what I was saying. The original post said we must >clean up our past, and I added "AND" our present. IOW, both things are >needed. Still it does not hurt tosay it again :-) > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Oh, silly me, I didn't see the "and" alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 06:46:32 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:46:32 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605064632.006ce51c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 09:00 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960604011921_127320530@emout07.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Jerry, >>Considering the quality of people claiming to be chelas these days, I'm >>damned glad I'm not one. >>And I finally got onto my own newsgroup today! I used a local outfit called >>Ripco. Now all we need is for it to get to the bigger servers. >> >>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA > >Demon Internet Ltd (UK) serves around 45,000 and is growing. It picked >up alt.theosophy as soon as it appeared. Not many people posting to it >so far though ... I put the TI staement up and: > >nothing. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >I'm still in the same dreary situation, I can read it, and I can post privete messages, but I cannot post to the group. Don't feel rejected because of no reply, there's only some 32 responses thus far and most of them were congratulatory or welcoming....patience pays alexis From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 06:52:47 1996 Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:52:47 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605065247.006d77d4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Krishnaji At 09:12 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Jerry wrote: > >>>> Clip >>>> >> > > As far as I have read, I do not think he ever went any of the *best* >schools. Have you found any specific details of the schools he attended? As I understand it: Krishnamurti attended but did not matriculate at the Universite de Paris (The sorbonne) and The university of Wurzburg (as did I) and attempted to Matriculate at Oxford but was driven from the school by the hostility of the other students who made very cruel fun of "The Little Avatar". Announcing a boy to be "The second Coming" and sending that same boy to a public school is a very cruel and thoughtless act. > > >alexis dolgorukii From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 5 11:14:15 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 06:14:15 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Quest (to Doss) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960605051341.006ba4ac@mail.slip.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alexis: Thanks for your message. One way to shut up anyone is to appoint that person or elect that person to an office. I am quite content being just an ordinary member. ...Ramadoss On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote: > At 01:21 PM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >Chuck: You are very right about Quest. When Dorothy was the President, I > >even requested that Quest be not sent to me and reduce my annual dues and > >promised that the savings will be spent in the local lodge activities. > >Nothing happened and the Quest continued to come. > >..doss > > > > > >Doss: > > Doss, you are surely the most determined man. Most people would have given > up in disgust long ago. But not you. You are to be commended. It is clear, > is it not? That no matter who is President of the TSA, in the last years the > member is a matter of no interest at all to the administration in Olcott. No > matter how small the request, it is ignored. Important requests such as your > requests for election results are arrogantly dismissed. Keep it up, if > enough people protest their totalitarian attitudes perhaps eventually > they'll listen. But in all probability, we need to have an total election > upset with all new officers. How about M.K.Ramadoss for president of the > TSA? I am not joking! > > alexis > > From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 5 11:43:51 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 06:43:51 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960605064609.262734d2@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: re CWL (to Ramadoss) At 08:36 PM 6/4/96 -0400, Jerry wrote: > > >Ramadoss asks: > >>> You have brought a very interesting question. Let me add >>>that when Krishnaji was "discovered" he was a very puny and not >>>a bright looking eleven year old. What are the odds of chosing >>>such a boy and who never passed a single examination and never >>>had a formal educational certificate and who turns out to be a >>>world renowned speaker? > >>>> clip >>>>> >I found that every year he would cover certain themes, which in >the light of later knowledge, I find many of them to be ironic. >For instance, I remember that he often talked about non >attachment to material things. Yet he owned a Mercedes Benz--a >real social status car at the time. He used to advise the ================= MKR: From what I have read and known from a friend who had known him for a long time, K never owned any car or for that manner anything except his clothing, a wallet and a couple of Patek Phillipe watches. I am sure the Benz you saw was not owned by him. He always used to travel in First Class and he was asked why he did so when Gandhi travelled in Third (Lowest) Class. His response was that he would like to see everyone travel in First Class. An incident that Ravi Ravindra witnessed (and has written about) showed that K was at ease in most affluent surroundings as well as in the most simplest ones which should not be overlooked. =============================== >clip>>>> >On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and >some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ======================= MKR: Can you amplify what these are? Only legal maneuvers I know of Rajagopal (who BTW is a lawyer educated and trained in London) and the K Trusts happened on account of the suit filed by the Attorney General of CA and the new K Foundation against Rajagopal and the old K Charitable Trusts. Later, Rajagopal and the Trustees sued K and the Trustees of the current KFA. Interestingly enough, one of those Trustees who was sued by Atty General of CA (and has the unique honor of suing Krishnamurti and others) is a member of TSA and was an elected Board Member of TSA and is currently an appointed Board Member of TSA. ======================================= >was able to sustain Krishnamurti's stature as a spiritual teacher >and maintain itself quite well with the income from K's >books and his continuing lecture tours. During K's lifetime, he >was able to attract ample wealthy donors that kept him and the >Foundation in the financial security he grew accustomed to while >under the care of the Theosophical Society. > >So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time >in all `his' opinions?" I don't know. The odds are that CWL had >to have been right about some things. But it is clear to me that >Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right about. ====================== MKR: I agree that CWL was not right about CWL's expectation how K is going to teach with the help of the Apostles created in LCC. However, K's ideas and discussion of various matters dealing with human issues has arrested the attention of a large number of people and based on what I see on the K's maillist, they have helped and affected the lives of many. This contribution of his is important to be taken into consideration. Anyone interested may want to subscribe to listening-l and see for themselves. ....ramadoss ==================================================== > >However, I must add that I deeply admire Krishnamurti's integrity >in rejecting CWL's vision and for leaving the TS. Also, I must >point out that K's "Pathless land" speech reaches to the heart of >HPB's teachings and goes directly against CWL's. This, I believe >to be evidence of real spiritual intuition on Ks part, since it >is unlikely that K ever read a word of HPB in his life. I like >K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ? I don't >think so. > >JHE > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 5 15:18:34 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:18:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960605111832_407759022@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! Alan, I'm not sure of the mechanics involved in how long it takes for a posting to get on. My posting of yesterday was on today. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 5 15:18:37 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:18:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960605111837_407759074@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Krishnaji Good thing for Krishnamurti that he probably wasn't the returned Christ. Crucifixion hurts! Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 5 15:18:40 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:18:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960605111840_407759137@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Response to JRC's posting Jerry, There are times when I worry about you. The Quest was not suitable reading for anyone with a modicum of common sense. I gave up on it once they started printing Andrew Harvey's bleatings about Mother Meera. And mustn't forget the OOOOOOOMram. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 5 15:18:44 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:18:44 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960605111842_407759158@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Rich, Oh, I don't know, we wolves are still around and roast lamb is mighty tasty. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 5 14:19:51 1996 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 10:19:51 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606051622.AA05370@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 01:27 AM 6/5/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I base my opinions on facts, >and only upon facts. Alexis, I hope you don't mean this. You would be the first human being to do so. I don't think a human CAN base his opinion only on facts. And then, even if that were possible, you have to chose WHAT facts to base your opinions on. Depending on which facts you focus on, your opinions can vary from one extreme to another. If you think, Alexis, that you base your opinions only on fact I have to feel pity for you, too. And, isn't that nice, we can then continue our relationship based on mutual pity! Perhaps we will get real good friends. >I am not entirely sure what >you base your opinions on but it would seem, at this juncture, to be >emotions and perhaps wishful thinking. I like facts. I always want facts about things. When I have a lot of facts I go within and listen. I read the vibrations, energies. Yes, I register the feeling content, to, and take that into account. Truth, Aexis, is within. Truth, is not an opinion based on this or that fact. Truth is a vibration. Sometimes the truth is actually very contrarian to superficial evidence. You have to listen to the voice of truth within. By the spirit, only, can we KNOW truth. >As an intellectual, I find many of >your positions somewhat eccentric. I know, I know. I use my intellect but I DO NOT trust it to tell me what the TRUTH is. Although, its input is important. Don't take me wrong, I am not an anti-intellectual. I have to tell you that I was entirely >astonished that you could not see anything pernicious about an association >with fascism. Yes, we are very different, you and I. I don't believe in fascism, and it could well be that AB was having an improper association with this or that fascist. Does that make her a fascist? Certainly not. A lot of good people had friends that were both fascists and nazis, you know. I have read a lot about AB. I know her character and personality quite well. I don't have a need to defend her. I know that she made mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes of judgment. Even CWL pointed this out, regarding some of the people she choose to have close to her. But her life was totally dedicated to serve the masters to the best of her ability. She inspired thousands, she was a loyal friend and courageous fighter for truth. Would you or I have done a better job? Being in the veil of maya, working out your karma, being under attack from hateful ones both near and far, it is not an easy situation. We can condemn AB for not being perfect, but then, do we not condemn ourselves? I will return your honest comment, and tell you that I find some (not all) of your opinions quite superficial and VERY emotional. Such is life, we see world through different glasses... Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From jem@vnet.net Wed Jun 5 17:10:24 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:10:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199606051710.NAA07868@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: I-Ching: Primal correlates constructed hi - I finally figured out how the primal correlates are constructed. The hexagrams are ordered first by polarity, and then the 62 "mixed" hexagrams are divided into the top 31 (yang) and lower 31 (yin) hexagrams. you then associate the highest yang with the highest yin going down in order until the lowest yang goes with the lowest yin. That is definitely how they are constructed. the question is now: why. and what are they good for. I looked at a couple of primal correlates, but it was unclear how the relationship was useful. (maybe I shouldn't be surprised?? :-) I can post some details, but I figured only a couple people really were interested. note to Dr.A Bain -- I'm back working on that old thorny problem; trying to build a tree from yarrow stalks :-) peace - john e. mead ----------------------------------------------------------- John E. Mead jem@vnet.net Theos-L etc. list-owner Member of Theosophical Society in America Member of Theosophy International [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness] ----------------------------------------------------------- From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 5 18:25:54 1996 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 11:25:54 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960605182554.006cf550@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Quest (to Doss) At 07:15 AM 6/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alexis: Thanks for your message. One way to shut up anyone is to appoint >that person or elect that person to an office. I am quite content being >just an ordinary member. > > ...Ramadoss > > Doss: You know, the American side of my family has been heavily engaged in the electoral process since the beginning of the American adventure (even as far as the Presidency) and, as a result, I hadn't even given one single thought to that aspect of elective office. But somehow, Doss, I can't seeing you being "shut up" by any kind of "power group" pressures. You are a most determined and outspoken man. You are also a painfully honest and compassionate man. The problem, as I see it, is exactly the same problem we're experiencing here in the USA, if decent people refuse to run for office, who's left? The TSA has for too long been monopolized by a small and exclusive "power group". Many of us (you and Sy Ginsberg for example) are protesting this fact. Now if people like you, or Sy, who would be an equally great choice for president won't run for not only the Presidency but to replace all National Officers with independent people, and the Board as well, then the TSA will not last very much longer. In fact, if American Democracy were working as originally planned, office holders, would be just ordinary citizens representing their fellow. The exact same thing is true about the TSA and it's office holders. In a Democracy office holders are not chosen to BE a power, but to exercise that prerogative on behalf of the electorate. alexis dolgorukii >> > > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 18:23:41 1996 Date: 05 Jun 96 14:23:41 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Core Teachings Message-Id: <960605182341_76400.1474_HHL57-1@CompuServe.COM> There has been a lot of discussion on theos-l about Theosophical core teachings, if such exist, and if so, of what are they comprised. It could be that this work has already been done for us. The Feb/Mar 96 Sunrise contains an article by Eloise Hart in which she lists G de Purucker's 7 core teachings or "seven general categories" or "seven luminous jewels or paths or keys to the temple of truth." These are: 1. Reinbodiment 2. Karma 3. Hierarchies 4. Swabhava (self-becoming) 5. Evolution 6. Two Paths (amrita-yana, the Path of Bliss, and pratyeka-yana, the Path for Oneself) 7. Atma-Vidya (knowledge of self) Now, I know that we will not get a consensus agreement of these Core Teachings here on Theos-l, but this does seem like a good place to start. Now, first of all, I want to assure everyone that we are talking about Theosophy (cap T) here. As much as some of us are opposed to any core teachings at all, it is essential to define "Theosophy" for newbies, advertising, and so on. Because after we respond with the three Objectives and the requirement for universal brotherhood, the question always surfaces about "Yes, but what do theosophsts believe in? What is your doctrine? " The only one of G de P's 7 categories that I would oppose is swabhava, which is one of my main objections to G de P's writings. He extolls the virtues of swabhava, and considers it a wonderful thing, because it leads to individualization. Buddhism, both Mahayana and Theravada oppose swabhava, and consider it the chief cause of our mayavic world--the great Heresy of Separateness. Swabhava is a four-letter word in Buddhism. Of course, Theosophy is not Buddhism, and if everyone agrees with swabhava, I would agree to leave it in. But otherwise I don't care for it as a theosophical core teachings at all (we should, instead, be teaching against it, and providing ways to counteract it). Any comments? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 5 18:52:38 1996 Date: 05 Jun 96 14:52:38 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Message-Id: <960605185238_76400.1474_HHL32-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard: >One might be wise, however, not to overlook the possibility that there may be >very few, if any, common sheep on this list if one thinks of them in your >latter way. Agreed. >Think you, Jerry, that your hard-acquired modicum >of personal theosophical knowledge makes you any sort of worthy in their >eyes? I hope not. > All the literature-muncher has to do to pass you up is to take >the "faith-leap" that his or her knowledge comes by means of a holy line of >Preternatural Dispensation, and you are defaulted below him or her with no >further ado whatever. This is exactly what has happened. But time is on my side. > This is why there is such a big commotion every time >the "Masters" issue is brought up... And also explains the attacks on Paul Johnson. >Similarly, without the capital ~M~ on ~Master~ or the ~T~ on ~Theosophical >doctrine~, a certain type of person apparently has hard time thinking that he >or she is better than the next guy. . . . And this is the chief danger of studying such things as hierarchies. It also explains the reluctance to see evolution/involution as a giant circle (which is exactly the Teaching)--the need for a spiral of "progress" is just too demanding and the lure of "growth" too enticing. >No, I am unaware of any common sheep on this list. Here, we have BIG, >egoically purposeful sheep whose merest turds are like mountains coming down >to scatter a few tiny wolves. . . . Right. These are mountain sheep, not sacrifical lambs. They view us wolves as an annoyance because we paint pictures that their worldviews cannot assimilate. But again, time is on the side of the wolf. I know. I was a Christian Science Sheep for several of my formative years, so I think I know what their problem is. Someday, the Chaos Factor will pull their safety net right out from under them, and they will then be ready to leave the pasture, or at least admit that it does have thorns. Happened to me, and I don't think I am all that unusual. Jerry S. Member, TI From kymsmith@micron.net Wed Jun 5 19:28:00 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 13:28 MDT From: kymsmith@micron.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Two general questions Dear friends in Theosophy, When you reveal to others that you have chosen the path of Theosophy, what do you find to be the general (if there is one in your case) reaction to be? Also, how would you, when asked to define it, explain it in an 'compact, cocktail-party' kind of way? Is it even possible to do so? (I tried quoting the Three Declared Objects and the Theosopical World View - they tend, for me, to bring blank looks upon the listeners - perhaps too wordy for the situation) Note: One individual who discovered I followed Theosophy has made it a mission to rescue me from this "demon-worshipping cult." Seems Theosophy is not appreciated in some very recent Christian literature. I was surprised about the number of books (given to me by this individual) addressing Theosophy with loathing. Thanks, Kym From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed Jun 5 19:56:00 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:56:00 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606051956.AA06775@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Krishnamurti (to ramadoss) >MKR: From what I have read and known from a friend who had known >him for a long time, K never owned any car or for that manner >anything except his clothing, a wallet and a couple of Patek >Phillipe watches. I am sure the Benz you saw was not owned by >him. JHE Doss, you are splitting hairs. But technically, you are correct, Krishnamurti did not own a car or anything else outside of personal items. Everything is owned by KFA, a non profit corporation dedicated to publishing everything K uttered. But if you think that K lived in poverty or was materially deprived in any way, you are very mistaken. Actually, I think having full use of everything one needs and desires, yet having everything belong to a non profit corporation is better than owning anything. You get free use of everything yet you don't have to buy it, pay taxes on it or even pay for its upkeep. MKR >He always used to travel in First Class and he was asked why he >did so when Gandhi travelled in Third (Lowest) Class. His >response was that he would like to see everyone travel in First >Class. An incident that Ravi Ravindra witnessed (and has written >about) showed that K was at ease in most affluent surroundings >as well as in the most simplest ones which should not be >overlooked. JHE Which very well makes my point. Krishnamurti was not one who sacrificed any personal comforts. To say the least, he lived in far better material comfort than the average American wage earner. He was at ease in affluent surroundings because those are the surroundings he has lived in since he was taken into the TS's care. Krishnamurti was a globe trotter from childhood. These kind of people become very sophisticated about being at ease in all different surroundings. JHE >>On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and >>some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >MKR: Can you amplify what these are? Only legal maneuvers I >know of Rajagopal (who BTW is a lawyer educated and trained in >London) and the K Trusts happened on account of the suit filed >by the Attorney General of CA and the new K Foundation against >Rajagopal and the old K Charitable Trusts. Later, Rajagopal and >the Trustees sued K and the Trustees of the current KFA. >Interestingly enough, one of those Trustees who was sued by Atty >General of CA (and has the unique honor of suing Krishnamurti >and others) is a member of TSA and was an elected Board Member >of TSA and is currently an appointed Board Member of TSA. JHE Yes, there has been quite a history of lawsuits around KFA. They go in one ear and out the other for me. The "really slick maneuver" I had in mind was Ragagopal's claiming that EVERYTHING Krishnamurti said or wrote in his entire life belongs to the Foundation. Lady Emily got into this problem in the 1950's with CANDLES IN THE SUN, when she was going to publish some personal letters to her from Krishnamurti. She was told that she had no legal right to publish those letters--that the content of those letters belong to the Foundation. That was a slick move in the 1950's and was without precedent. It wasn't until thirty years later with the legal battle over the ownership of J.D. Salanger's personal letters to others that KFA's claim was ever really tested. Now I call that slick. Rajagopal was the type of lawyer I would want on my side if I got into a legal tangle. JHE >>So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time >>in all `his' opinions?" I don't know. The odds are that CWL >>had to have been right about some things. But it is clear to >>me that Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right >>about. >MKR: I agree that CWL was not right about CWL's expectation how >K is going to teach with the help of the Apostles created in >LCC. MKR >However, K's ideas and discussion of various matters dealing >with human issues has arrested the attention of a large number >of people and based on what I see on the K's maillist, they have >helped and affected the lives of many. This contribution of his >is important to be taken into consideration. Anyone interested >may want to subscribe to listening-l and see for themselves. JHE No doubt K has changed the lives of many. No doubt, there are many more who have been unaffected by him. But how does this make him any different from the many other spiritual teachers? Please understand that I have no criticism of K or of his message. But I find it very strange to see so many people following and hanging on to every word uttered by a man who kept telling everybody not to follow him or to hang onto his words. JHE >>He was surrounded by tutors and had >>the opportunity to go to the best schools in the world. He MKR >As far as I have read, I do not think he ever went any of the >*best* schools. Have you found any specific details of the >schools he attended? JHE I said that he had the *opportunity.* K's experiences with University life is well outlined by his biographers. Alexis' post sort of summarizes them, but I didn't take the time to go back through the documents, or even the biographies to confirm his points, but they more or less reflect what I recall: >As I understand it: Krishnamurti attended but did not >matriculate at the Universite de Paris (The sorbonne) and The >university of Wurzburg (as did I) and attempted to Matriculate >at Oxford but was driven from the school by the hostility of the >other students who made very cruel fun of "The Little Avatar". >Announcing a boy to be "The second Coming" and sending that same >boy to a public school is a very cruel and thoughtless act. My understanding is that the above mentioned Universities are world class i.e. the "best schools." They are attended by the children of the most privileged families. I wish I could have had such opportunities. But alas, I'm hardly from a privileged family--let alone an educated one. JHE >>I like >>K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ? I >>don't think so. MKR >I don't think any one can be certain about whether he is the >returned Christ or not. If he is the returned Christ, then you >have the problem of the religions like Hindu, Buddhism, Moslem >etc rejecting him because it is not their prophet or Avatar who >is returning. Just a thought. If he really the returned Christ >he would have had severe problems from the various Christian >denominations all over world - some accepting and some >rejecting. JHE I only expressed my opinion. You are of course welcome to yours. I have a rather extensive collection of very scarce Krishnamurti material here. Some of it is from a very early point in his career when he was promoted as the returned Christ. The Churches gave the TS a lot of flack about this claim early on so CWL and AB quickly backed off on this and introduced the idea that he was the vehicle for the "Maitreya," who was supposed to be the real being behind many spiritual teachers including Jesus and the Buddha. This shift removed them from the firing line of the Churches and also gave K a more universal appeal. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 5 23:51:27 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:51:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960605195126_319636400@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl Alex, I have a rule never to read your postings until I have something in my belly, otherwise I end up attacking the refrigerator. Chuck From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Jun 6 00:28:44 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:28:44 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606060028.RAA08908@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Especially directed to Don G. Alexis D OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations TO: Don G. and Alexis and of course everyone else interested: Some of what is written below was posted on Theos-l about 2 months ago. Most of it was written by Dr. Mike M. and gives in greater detail his view on OOBEs ,etc. [All of this is taken from alt.religion.eckankar, a USENET discussion group]. I am posting it again to give more detail in our present theos-l & theos-buds discussion on this subject. Daniel FIRST A QUOTE FROM DR. M: >As someone who has experienced this phenomenon of OOBE=soul travel=astral >projection=lucid dreaming for some 25 years (they are all the same), I >have discussed this in detail before on this newsgroup. Neither I nor >anyone else has ever produced evidence for knowledge at a distance during >a lucid dream or out of the body experience. Period. Including tests >conducted under laboratory conditions. Experiments with brain probing >indicate that the OOBE is a mental state that can be reproduced by the >excitation of certain regions of the brain. William Martens wrote to Dr. Mike M.: >>> >>> Since, in your opinion, the inner worlds that some people experience >>> while they are alive on this physical world are nothing but random >>> neurons firing in the cerebral cortex of the physical brain is it also >>> true (in your oppinion) that the inner worlds that some people believe >>> they will go to after this life are really non-existant as well? >>> >>> In other words is this one physical life all that you personally expect >>> to experience? >>> >>> Do you believe in any kind of continuance of your essential self to >>> survive the physical death of your body? Mike M. replies to Martens as follows: >>There is no reason or necessity to postulate the existence of anything >>supernatural to explain "inner" experiences. There are clear >>physiological explanations for these sensory experiences and nothing >>mysterious about them at all. > >>Neither have I seen any evidence for the continued existence of >>consciousness after the brain ceases to function. On the other hand, there >>is abundant evidence for the contrary belief. > >>The universal nature of religion is perfectly understandable in biological >>terms. The "purpose" of a biological entity is to survive and pass on its >>genes to its offspring. The longer an individual survives (within >>limits), the greater is the chance it will successfully pass on its >>genes. With the development of self-awareness in the human along with the >>level of intelligence necessary to recognize the finite nature of the >>individual organism, humans developed religion and the belief in some form >>of immortality as a psychological expression of the "selfish" gene. In >>simpler terms, any being that is intelligent enough to recognize its own >>finite nature will naturally put up a psychological defense, i.e., >>religion. That seems self-evident. Self-survival is the strongest instinct >>of all. > >>I recommend "The Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick (Simon and >>Schuster). Crick shared the Nobel Prize with Jim Watson for the discovery >>of the helical structure of DNA. For the past 25 years or so he has >>dedicated himself to the study of the neurosciences. The "astonishing >>hypothesis" is just that consciousness is the result of the activity of >>billions of interacting neurons. Crick's wry humor is that this is only >>astonishing to layman, most of whom carry some sort of religious engrams. > >>I don't see how a profound understanding of biology is compatible with >>religious belief. I have only seen them coexist in a very few scientists >>who somehow manage to completely divorce their early religious training >>from all logical scrutiny. > >>If you believe in survival after death, what is it that makes you believe that? Daniel Caldwell quotes 2 paragraphs from the Mike M.'s above answer and then adds several comments and questions: >>In [above] article, Dr. Mike M. wrote: >>> >>>There is no reason or necessity to postulate the existence of anything >>>supernatural to explain "inner" experiences. There are clear >>>physiological explanations for these sensory experiences and nothing >>>mysterious about them at all. > >>>Neither have I seen any evidence for the continued existence of >>>consciousness after the brain ceases to function. On the other hand, there >>>is abundant evidence for the contrary belief. >>Mike, how much do you know about parapsychology? Are you aware of the data of >>this field of endeavor? From my point of view, there is *some* evidence that >>would indicate that consciousness may transcend the brain and in fact can >>sometimes operate outside the confines of the physical body. I am not >>saying that the parapsychological data proves such contentions. All I am >>saying is that this data puts a new slant on the biological data. How aware >>are you of this parapsychological data? Or are you the "typical" kind of >>skeptic of the CSICOP variety? > >>It would be interesting to see what David Lane's views are on this subject. >>My impression is that although he is skeptical of the claims of Eckankar, Lane >>believes that consciousness transcends the body, etc. I may be wrong. HINT! >>HINT! > >>Mike, have you read Dr. Robert Almeder's DEATH AND PERSONAL SURVIVAL: THE >>EVIDENCE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH? Almeder is a philosopher and approaches the >>subject with an open mind. I could give you a whole list of good books that >>are not written by religious or new age minded people but by critically minded >>people who have looked at the evidence and have felt that there is something >>mysterious about the mind and that science has not fully explained the mind >>nor its relationship to the brain, the nervous system and the body. > >>Are you as skeptical of your own "beliefs" and "conclusions" as you are of the >>beliefs of the Eckists, religionists, and paranormalists? In other words, are >>you a Zetetic skeptic? Are you aware of the writings of Dr. Marcello Truzzi? > >>There is a excellent FAQ written on parapsychology by Dean Radin and several >>other parapsychologists. It is available on the WWW and you can find it if >>you do a search using the word "parapsychology." I will try to find its >>location on the WWW and post it later. > >>Daniel H. Caldwell > > Mike M. responds to Daniel's comments and questions by reposting what he had previously written in response to Glen's questions. >I am reposting this in response to Daniel Caldwell's questions: > > > I will answer Glen's questions, because it just may open up some eyes >and ears. Not those of the eck participants on this newsgroup, but of the >lurkers, who have always been the object of my posts. Some of this will >be repetitive to old timers on this newsgroup. > > First, the accusation is that I am somehow afraid of my visions, >experiences, etc., and therefore place a materialistic slant on them. It >seems self-evident that this explanation doesn't make any sense. I >started having OOBEs at the age of 15 or16 prior to my exposure to >eckankar. At that time, I was absolutely convinced that they were "real" >in the same sense that most eckists wrongfully interpret these phenomena. >I joined eckankar because it appeared to explain and to place these >experiences into a pleasing (if somewhat simple-minded) religious context >(I was raised a Catholic and fully believed in a Supreme Being, etc.). My >OOB experiences were self-induced after reading the first edition of >"Journeys Out of the Body" by Robert Monroe in 1970. Around this time, I >also met and befriended a professional psychic and medium. I spent much >of my last two years in high school with this gentleman, with whom I had >many interesting experiences. I mention this only to illustrate that I was >totally and completely "sold" on psychic phenomena and the supernatural. >I was fully one of "You" out there. I could not even imagine life without >a spiritual/psychic side. I initially wanted to go to college at Duke in >order to study parapsychology, because Duke had the only semi-respectable >psychic research institute in the country (I ended up going to another >university). > > After I began my intensive training in the sciences in college, leading >through graduate school, postgraduate training, and beyond, I began to >experiment on myself and to evaluate my OOB experiences, read the >scientific literature (such as it was) on this subject and related >phenomena. At the beginning, I was still a totally committed eckist, in >fact, a "leader" in the area I lived in. As my knowledge of science and >the scientific method grew along with my evaluation of my own experiences >and the experiences of others as documented in the scientific literature, >it became clear that the OOBE and so-called mystical experience have a >completely materialistic explanation in the neuron. No evidence for >knowledge at a distance has ever been demonstrated in a properly designed >experiment. Period. Despite what friend Gunnar would have us believe. He >appears to have just started his examination of these data-- I have had >nearly 25 years of it, and have met and spoken to JB Rhine, among others. >I have communicated with many over the years who have had some degree of >control over the OOB state. I was a member of the Monroe Institute for a >year or two in the late seventies (that just means I took one of their >home courses). Neither I nor anyone I have talked to has produced one >shred of evidence that the OOBE is anything but a lucid dream or >hypnagogic experience resulting from the firing of neurons. That is, no >one has produced any evidence that one can obtain information at a >distance in this state. Certainly not the Monroe Institute, despite their >sincerity and efforts. There has been nothing but negative results after >many decades of work on the part of many dedicated investigators around >the World. After so much negative data, in any other branch of science we >would say--enough already. > > Of course, I am very familiar with the *claims* of positive >results--these are a combination of statistical blips, wishful thinking, >sloppy, uncontrolled experiments, faulty equipment, and forgery and >fakery. Indeed, the entire field of parapsychology has been rife with >these unfortunate occurrences. Every time the so-called positive >experiments have been repeated by others using a proper protocol, the >"positive" results vanish. If you saw some of the so-called "positive" >data, most of you would wince and say, so what? We are not talking about >demonstrating the existence of the soul--rather, observing something like >a tiny deviation from the statistical norm using Psi cards or the like. A >Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Ernst Rutheford, once said--if you have to >use statistics to prove something--go back and design the experiment >properly! If a certain type of experiment is repeated often enough, the >outcome will come out "positive" a certain percentage of the time. > > How have I reached my conclusions about mystical phenomena? By an >objective evaluation of all of the subjective and objective evidence >available to me. It would take several volumes to describe all of the >evidence I have sifted through and evaluated. In a way, I was fortunate to >have intensive training in the scientific method and extensive experience >with the the Out-of-Body state. It appears to me that few if any eckists >on this group have actually had OOBEs as described by Monroe, Muldoon, >Schwann, and others. Monroe's descriptions are the least colored, but even >he embellished them considerably. For one thing, he made up the only >incident in his first book that might have provided some sort of >semi-objective evidence for the "reality" of his experiences (the pinching >episode was made up for those of you who have read the book--see Rogo's >book on Astral Projection). The pre-OOBE vibratory state described by >Monroe is a well-known phenomenon called sleep paralysis that occurs >during dreaming. The fact that Monroe, I, and, and many others can become >conscious during sleep paralysis (which precedes the OOBE), illustrates >the dream nature of the experience. This has also been demonstrated in the >laboratory by the use of EEGs on subjects during their OOBEs. You can look >up the data yourselves. > > I have also had the more "mystical" type of experience. It's really no >different. I have described some of my inner experiences (dreams) >involving Twitchell and Gross before on this newsgroup, and the fact that >Gross asked me to contribute some of my experiences to the aborted >biography Brad Steiger started working on. As I recall, one of my >experiences (dreams) is actually reported in one of the eck discourses. >All neurological gobbledegook. Fun, but mundane. This is also a >hypnagogic state where one gains partial control over dream-like images. >These are mixed with subconscious desires and images. One can hear, see, >and experience, virtually anything, including other "planes", sounds, >masters, etc. I believe most people can learn to induce these >experiences. But it takes enormous willpower, patience, and something few >people have--lots of time. I spent a couple of hours a day for a year or >solearning to "catch hold of" the hypnagogic state. I could do it because >I was a teenager with all the free time on my hands that I needed. > > Am I somehow afraid of the Truth? That is not logical and sounds like >classic psychological projection. Who in their right mind would be afraid >of immortality? It was a great intellectual struggle for me to break free >of my ingrained religious beliefs. Indeed, this takes a great deal of >courage from anyone. What doesn't take a lick of courage is to accept >other peoples explanation of YOUR experience, which is what every eckist >does. I did it, too, because it was easy. They tell you exactly what you >want to hear. How many of you have gone out on your own and attempted to >objectively evaluate your "inner" experiences and directly challenged your >most cherished beliefs? On the other hand, how many of you accept whatever >Klemp tells you as fact? Have you REALLY proven it to yourself? You don't >have to put up a facade. These explanations are provided by those ignorant >of physiology, the same way the Shamans used to provide religious >explanations for mental illness, the stars in the night sky, etc. As >science has advanced, these silly explanations have been swept under the >rug by all religions as hidden embarassments. One by one. Do you want to >look under the rug forever for your explanations? > > What do my own personal inner experiences prove or disprove? >Absolutely nothing. The objective data concerning the phenomena in >question are more than sufficient to identify them as neurological states >and to disprove the supernatural hypothesis. I happened to be in the >unusual position of having the scientific training, to have the desire, >and to have developed the subjective abilities to put these phenomena to a >personal test. That is all. > > Ask yourself what evidence you really and truly have that confirms your >religious beliefs. How convincing is that evidence? Would it convince a >dispassionate observer? Would you stake your child's life on it? Would >trained scientific observers with no interest at stake in the outcome draw >the same conclusions? Can you imagine life without immortality, without a >soul, without a master--with only organic molecules in a self-replicating >system? A life that ends when the brain ceases to function? I have >imagined it both ways, and am forced to accept the correct interpretation. >If you can't even imagine it both ways, how can you begin to go beyond >mere religious faith? > >To paraphrase an eck master: You can DISprove it for yourself--if you are >bold and adventuresome. If you are not, then remain an eckist. > >A closing prediction: The very youngest eckists among us will live to see >the day neurobiologists can explain the so-called mystical experience >(i.e., hallucination, lucid dream) at the cellular/molecular levels. No >question about it. Eckankar will have passed into oblivion long before >this, however. Or perhaps eckists will transform into a new type of drug >culture, where one takes a specific neurotransmitter to induce a specific >"experience". > >One last thing. It is certainly possible that my materialistic views are >completely wrong. Scientific theories are constantly in a state of flux >as we gather more data. I would place the odds that I am wrong in this >regard at one in a thousand or less. Religion has been given a fair shake >for millenia, and has proven to be a miserable failure at explaining >anything. The further we advance in our knowledge of the universe, the >more religious viewpoints have to be abandoned. The odds are getting less >and less every day. > End of Mike M.'s comments and THE END OF THIS TRANSMISSION From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Jun 6 02:41:10 1996 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 19:41:10 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606024110.006cf0e4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Owls and Vultures (to Jerry S) Jerry S: Your story about wolves and sheep is a good exercise for theosophical students to reflect upon. It also gives us a good lesson in the nature of analogies. Analogies can be used as a descriptive tool, as a metaphor to describe something difficult to put in words, or hard to tell someone directly. But they can also be abused, when they attempt to "prove" something, when they are carried too far, or when they are inappropriate. The basic point of the analogy, which I'd agree with, is that "sheep" refers to those following a group approach, using an organization or supporting sangha of fellow students to better themselves and the world. And the "wolves" are individualists, going out on their own. Regardless of approach -- through a spiritual organization or on one's own -- the steps need to be the same. One must awaken an inner fire, an inner seed needs to germinate and start to sprout, an inner calling must be heard and responded to. This is the same. This awakening can and is found in both types of students. A participant in a group, if it is a bona fide spiritual group, is not a passive "follower", but just as challenged by life -- both within and without -- as a loner. The "sheep versus wolves" analogy does not sit right with me. There's an unsavory connotation that those mining for gold in the theosophical doctrines -- taking a Platonic or Jnana Yoga approach -- are passive followers, people avoiding a real experience of life. This is simply untrue. There are, of course, many people in either approach -- the individual or the group approaches -- that are pretenders, deluded, with a dead inner life, and perhaps overcome with psychological inflation. These people are the "smoke" that proves that there is "fire" nearby. If I were making an analogy, I'd make it the owls versus the vultures. The owls are more civilized, wise, etc., while the vultures are loners that'll pick over anything. We owls have higher standards, even if our diet isn't as exciting, and we don't give a hoot over the latest road kill. (From the above, you can see how an analogy can be both descriptive *and misleading*, and can be used to argue a point in any direction that one wants. An analogy can be subject to much abuse, including our "sheep and wolves" or "owls and vultures" analogies.) What is needed by students of any approach is a willingness to go beyond the social norms and conventions, to follow an inner quest. This means dumping the attempts of government and politics to manipulate one's speech and behavior, going beyond the conventional New Age view of the psychical, and leaving behind a surface reading of texts on the Mysteries, including the better books of the theosophical literature. Theosophy needs to be studied *in its own context*. It's highly helpful to keep up on modern science, and to draw parallels from it and one's personal experience. But the study is of deep teachings that go beyond modern society and one's mundane experience. One has to let one's mind dare step beyond the confines of one's personality and embrace *something more*. The deep occult doctrines are made foolish, at times, and made into a mockery when one indiscriminately attempts to tie them to modern science. Early this century, for example, there was a scientific theory that waves like light needed a substance to propagate through space. This was called "ether". Leadbeater picked up on this theory and his writings embraced it. The theory was later discarded by science, but his theosophical books were left making a connection to something now rejected by science. The error here was the attempt to connect the timeless truths with a passing theory of science. This doesn't mean that we cannot draw upon science for analogy and metaphor. There are, in fact, many new discoveries that are rich in symbolism, like the bifurcation curve, strange attractors, turbulence, quantum physics, and the fractal, rich in visual metaphor, as seen on the computer screen. Another problem with Theosophy failing to take on and find wider value with people is that there seems to be widespread rejection of the spiritual-intellectual approach. It is possible with this approach to have *real* experiences too. People with a strong preference to cultivation of the psychic tend to heavily discount or entirely deny that such an area of experience is real and possible for us to have. Hence, we hear lots of talk of some psychic vision or out-of-the-body experience as "real experience" and inner experiences of the other kind as the "fantasy" of people with mere book learning and "no real experience". Or we hear that the fruits of meditation are "mere imagination" whereas psychical sight is actual experience, and not equally-subjective and possibly hallucination, the visual equalivent to imagination! I can see that in a person's development, over time (many lifetimes), elements of both the spiritual-intellectual and the psychical need to come into play. Were it not for this *denial* of reality to non-psychic inner development, I think we'd have far less disagreements on theos-l. The relative stress one may pay upon the two approaches may depend upon whether someone prefers "bottup up" (the psychical or introverted sensation approach) or "top down" (the spiritual-intellectual, or introverted intuition approach). We'll get along better, I think, as a group, when there's more general recognition of the validity of the different approaches. This doesn't mean simply that the people that aren't pro-psychic take greater care not to put it down, and show the highest respect for people that are cultivating it. It *also means* that the people with a pro-psychic approach stop their denial that there is no spiritual-intellectual approach which involves *real experience*, and stop claiming that they are the only ones with "inner experiences". (The natural reaction to this would be to have a counter claim that the pro-psychic people are deluded by their hallucinations, confused, lacking in clarity of thought and insight, and fairly useless to learn anything from. This would also be an unfair characterization, but this would be an understandable *emotional* response to the equally negative charges of "mere book learning" by the psychic crowd. It would be wrong to do, but sometimes one's feelings, including anger, do the talking, silencing one's own reasoned voice.) Am I a sheep? No. Am I a wolf? No. Just a student that wants to get at the deep Truths buried in Theosophy, like many others. In Peace, -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 6 01:17:58 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 02:17:58 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Bye Bye Quest In-Reply-To: <960605031729_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960605031729_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >The Quest is a great magazine, but clearly >not suitable for Joe Sixpack. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI We had it sent free in the UK for about 2 years, but they stopped it. Most of the contents were, to say the least, unsuitable for Joe Sixpack and me. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 6 02:00:32 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 03:00:32 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: TSA? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960605182554.006cf550@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960605182554.006cf550@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >The TSA has for too long been monopolized by a small and >exclusive "power group". Many of us (you and Sy Ginsberg for example) are >protesting this fact. Now if people like you, or Sy, who would be an equally >great choice for president won't run for not only the Presidency but to >replace all National Officers with independent people, and the Board as >well, then the TSA will not last very much longer. In fact, if American >Democracy were working as originally planned, office holders, would be just >ordinary citizens representing their fellow. The exact same thing is true >about the TSA and it's office holders. If I understand Sy correctly, it may be that the laws of Illinois (or even Federal law) could be in direct conflict with the articles of association of the T.S. (Adyar) - which would put the TSA in a similar situation to Canada ... if so, one of them would have to change, or the TSA would have to quit being a Section under Adyar rules ... Gibber gibber gibber ... 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 Jun 6 02:13:05 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 03:13:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Krishnamurti In-Reply-To: <9606051956.AA06775@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9606051956.AA06775@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >I find it very strange to see so many people >following and hanging on to every word uttered by a man who kept >telling everybody not to follow him or to hang onto his words. Quite! I read a book containing talks of his in which he told the audience not to write down what he was saying, as it was only relevant at that particular moment in that particular place. This statement was, of course, faithfully writeen down and recorded as "words of wisdom." I personally find him extremely boring. 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 Jun 6 02:07:45 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 03:07:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Two general questions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , kymsmith@micron.net writes >Dear friends in Theosophy, > >When you reveal to others that you have chosen the path of Theosophy, what >do you find to be the general (if there is one in your case) reaction to be? "Huh?" > >Also, how would you, when asked to define it, explain it in an 'compact, >cocktail-party' kind of way? Is it even possible to do so? No. I find it necessary to suggest to people that they get some books and read up on it, as it is not a "five minute explanation" subject. > (I tried >quoting the Three Declared Objects and the Theosopical World View - they >tend, for me, to bring blank looks upon the listeners - perhaps too wordy >for the situation) > >Note: One individual who discovered I followed Theosophy has made it a >mission to rescue me from this "demon-worshipping cult." Seems Theosophy is >not appreciated in some very recent Christian literature. I was surprised >about the number of books (given to me by this individual) addressing >Theosophy with loathing. > >Thanks, > >Kym > This is very common. Most Christian fundamentalist sects take similar views. 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 Jun 6 01:56:02 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 02:56:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: I-Ching In-Reply-To: <199606051710.NAA07868@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199606051710.NAA07868@katie.vnet.net>, "John E. Mead" writes >note to Dr.A Bain -- I'm back working on that old thorny problem; >trying to build a tree from yarrow stalks :-) Well now, if Kabala has 32 paths of wisdom, and 64 is twice 32, then how does Kabala compare with the I Ching? Let me now if you find out! 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 Jun 6 01:19:49 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 02:19:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl In-Reply-To: <960604232404_210725227@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960604232404_210725227@emout13.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >No, I am unaware of any common sheep on this list. Here, we have BIG, >egoically purposeful sheep whose merest turds are like mountains coming down >to scatter a few tiny wolves. . . . > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle Greetings, fellow turd producer ... 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 Jun 6 06:12:08 1996 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 23:12:08 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606061208.006d3494@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Especially directed to Don G. Alexis D Daniel: I thank you greatly for that long and informative posting. My reaction to Dr. Mueckler? Well it is primarily that he is being dishonest, both with us, and with himself. There is far more here than he admits to. What it may be I have no idea but there is far too much bitterness displayed in his arguments than is normally displayed in scientific converse. Also, it seems to me, that he has lost (if he ever had any) all of the objectivity he brags about. Mueckler spends a great deal of time talking about his analyzing himself and his experiences because no one else was qualified to do so. Are you familiar with the old joke in legal circles that "The man who serves as his own Lawyer has a fool for a client"...well it holds just as true in psychoanalysis. "The Man who serves as his own analyst has a fool for an analyst". I think Mueckler is striving for social acceptance in the anthropocentric-materialistic circles he has decided he wishes to join, and has created a kind of self-hypnosis to convince himself that he, and they, are correct. They aren't, and you know that better than most people. He has joined what has to be defined as a "fundamentalist-materialist" group and they've circled the wagons against "The New Irrationality". This is the same crowd that refuses to look at the evidence for paranormality, and the same crowd that refuses to look at any evidence at all indicating that "animals" have feelings or are capable of thought. They are just as bigoted and angry as the Christian Right. The problem with these materialists is that they are just as much a religion as the fundies. alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 15:28:05 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:28:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606112805_211735131@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Alan, This discussion borders on the bizarre for the simple reason that remote viewing is considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence procedure. If the out of body experience is nothing more than an hallucination, then a lot of us are in serious trouble. Chuck MTI, FTSA From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Jun 6 18:14:59 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:14:59 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606061814.LAA20741@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Chuck, Could you give more details....especially of what you mean by "considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence procedure." What are your souces for this statement? If you give us these details, I will send them to Dr. Mike M. Daniel >Alan, >This discussion borders on the bizarre for the simple reason that remote >viewing is considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence >procedure. >If the out of body experience is nothing more than an hallucination, then a >lot of us are in serious trouble. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > > From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Jun 6 18:34:39 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:34:39 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606061834.LAA29574@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck >Alan, >This discussion borders on the bizarre for the simple reason that remote >viewing is considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence >procedure. >If the out of body experience is nothing more than an hallucination, then a >lot of us are in serious trouble. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > > Chuck, I have just found out that Dr. Mike Mueckler (I hope I am spelling his last name correct!) has offered a challenge to the Eckists and probably to anyone else that he will pay $10,000 to anyone who can correctly read the 6 digits taped on the mirror of his dresser in his bedroom. I assume the challenge is still in effect. ARE YOU WILLING TO TRY? You could use an extra $10,000? : ) I hope the dollar amount is correct!. Daniel P.S. Dr. M.'s e-mail address is: mike@cellbio.wustl From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 22:30:11 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 15:30:11 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606223011.006b61a0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: At 12:14 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alan, >This discussion borders on the bizarre for the simple reason that remote >viewing is considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence >procedure. >If the out of body experience is nothing more than an hallucination, then a >lot of us are in serious trouble. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Alan and Chuck: I am just finished reading "WHEN ELEPHANT'S WEEP" by Dr. Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan Mc Carthy (Delacorte Press) and while it's not their primary subject, a lot of time is spent dealing with people like Mike Meuckler and their blind materialism. Masson is one of the more important Psychotherapists writing today and so I think his views on this kind of pseudo-scientists are revealing. His primary subject is animal intelligence and the emotional capacities of "animals". alexis From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 22:37:33 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 15:37:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606223733.006d6510@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: At 02:19 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Chuck, >Could you give more details....especially of what you mean by >"considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence >procedure." What are your souces for this statement? > >If you give us these details, I will send them to Dr. Mike M. > >Daniel > > Daniel: He means "intelligence in the KGB-CIA sense of the word. I'll let him give you his "sources", I may not give you mine. alexis > > From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 22:40:17 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 15:40:17 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606224017.006d27e8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck At 02:49 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >> > >Chuck, >I have just found out that Dr. Mike Mueckler (I hope I am >spelling his last name correct!) has offered a challenge >to the Eckists and probably to anyone else that he will >pay $10,000 to anyone who can correctly read the 6 digits >taped on the mirror of his dresser in his bedroom. I assume >the challenge is still in effect. > >ARE YOU WILLING TO TRY? You could use an >extra $10,000? : ) > >I hope the dollar amount is correct!. > >Daniel > >P.S. Dr. M.'s e-mail address is: mike@cellbio.wustl > > >I find it extremely evidentiary that this is exactly the same "deal" offered by 'THE AMAZING RANDI", the stage magician in his "challenge to esp folks" A little collusion perhaps? alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 00:13:53 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:13:53 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607001353.00701168@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OBEs are hallucinations At 05:57 PM 6/5/96 -0400, you wrote: Don: I've run out of time, I have things I need to do (like walk the wolf), I've saved your message on OBEs to disk and I'll print it out and give it the careful consideration it deserves then respond. No more "shooting from the hip" for me. alexis >Alexis: > >Thank you for the comments to my thoughts. Let me respond in turn. Let's begin >here: > >majority opinion.> > >At a superficial level this is indeed true. As you probe deeper into my >understanding though, I don't know if such a statement can apply. > >I don't know anything about Dr. Mueckler and only heard of him in Daniel's >post, so I cannot say anything at all about what drives or motivates him. > ><. Another problem with citing "scientific facts" which others may >point out to you is that they are "facts" right now, they may change at any >time. i.e. who quotes Euclid today? Scientific "facts' go in and out of >fashion almost as frequently as hemlines. > > >This statement is observant and accurate to a degree, however, it is incomplete. >Science has a cummullative nature about it. Most mathematicians today continue >to quote Euclid because many of Euclid's ideas forn the corner stone of math. >NonEuclidean geometry (which Einstein used to forumlate Relativity theory) is >not a refutation of Euclid - it is an extension of Euclid and would not exist >without Euclid's contributions. > >This is generally true of all science. I am a chemist. I do not quote 18th >century chemist like Lavosier or Dalton, but everything I do in my lab implies >what these people discovered two centuries ago. What I do in my lab would be >impossible without their contributions. > >So, the nuts and bolts of science are not really fashion at all, nor are they >arbitrary. They are techniques and viewpoints that serve as foundations to >build upon. > >Mueckler is based upon the fairly obvious perception that they are based >upon the a priori rejection of ANY AND ALL extra-physical or trans-physical >phenomena. > > >Part of this attitude amongst scientists reflects the historical roots of >science: science grew as a counter-cultural movement to the unthinking dogma of >the Medieval Church. And, like a brash teenager trying to proove his own, >science rejected its connection to spirutal truths. Although, this is not true >in general. Many great scientists, including Newton, Einstein, and many others >were imminently spiritual men, and saw science in a spritual light. > >Another part of this attitude has to do with finding the least complicated >explanation. Science is driven by Ocam's razor, which is to find the simplest >explanation for a phenomena. When this fails, more complicated explanations >are then invoked. Necessity drives this process, not fancy or speculation. The >history of science is replete with such examples. > >Thus, to attribute OBEs as phenomena created by the brain is the simplest >explanation, and also the most obvious. It is a starting point, and a good one >that has worked well for the past several decades in which this paradigm has >been used. Again however, Dr. Mueckler simply has a bad attitude to come off >as if these issues are all black and white. > >Even Manly Hall himself has said that we should not try to invoke super-physical >explanations when a physical explanation will suffice. This of course is >different from rejecting spirituality in any sense, which is a mistake many >scientists make. Scientists who flat out reject spirituality simply expose >their ignorance and lack of depth and subtlety. > >< But to occultists (who are not all simply mystics) while the >brain is an immensely interesting thing, it is not the most interesting >thing. To metaphysicians it is the mind which is important.> > >This is an unfortunate viewpoint alexis. You are making a dichotomy where, in >fact, there is none. It is also unfortunate that occultists feel justified to >ignore the knowldege of the brain without first studying it and trying to >understand it. I used to hold this attitude, but I was force to learn about the >brain in my PhD program, and what i learned so fascinated me that I now am >enamored with the study of the brain. I can literally think of no more >interesting topic. The brain is a vast mystery and to dismiss its study so >nonchalantly only reveals that you are not well informed about our current state >of knowledge of the brain and mind. > >The brain and mind are two different views of the exact same thing. The mind is >not different from the brain. The mind is a process created by the brain. Now, >this does not need to imply that there is no mind that transcends brains, as for >example, with the occult idea of the mental plane. From another angle, God's >mind created not only the brain, but the entire physical world. > >All I am saying is do not sell yourself short by rejecting ideas with which you >have no familiarity. If your brain was to become damaged either by trauma, >stroke or other means, you would quickly appreciate the significance of the >brain in the action of the mind. I hope it never comes to this and that you can >simply open your mind to current knowledge and discover intellectually just how >important the brain is for the operation of your mind. > >non-devotee metaphysicians the proper analogy is that the brain is >equivalent to a CPU (a fantastically efficient CPU) while the mind is the >operator of the CPU.> > >Again, such thinking is a vast oversimplification. There is nothing wrong if >you wish to allow your thinking to exist at such a simple level. However, when >others offer more sophisticated views, I would hope you would at least listen to >what they have to say. > >The brain/mind is very, very different from a computer. I don't have time to go >into this but if you want references to authors who discuss this matter, I can >happily send them to you. > >The brain controls itself. Your sense of control of your thoughts, emotions and >actions are in fact due to a specific part of your cerebral cortex. There are >thousands of documented cases of people who have sustained damage to these >regions of the cortex and lost control of themselves and experienced drastic >changes in personality. > >I use to believe that the brain was merely a channel for our non-physical self. >I no longer belief this idea. I consider the idea, but I do not believe it. >What I do know, and have seen in hospital settings is that people who experience >brain damage undergo drastic changes in their mental and psychological >functioning. > >To me, the crux of the matter always rested on dreams. Dreams, supposedly are >our nonphysical experiences, or at least some of them are. The fact is however, >when people suffer symptoms of brain damage, these symptoms are also present in >their dreams. If our dreams were, say, our astral body acting >semi-independently of the physical body, there is no reason to believe that >brain damage would affect the action of the astral body. However, brain damage >symptoms do occur in the person's dreams, indicating that dreams themselves are >a product of the brain. > >This idea leads to a very different line of thought than the traditional occult >view that seperates physical and nonphyscal bodies. Instead of simply rejecting >this view because it appears to counterdict what you presently believe, I would >recommend opening up to this view, even if it does challange your present >believes. I have discovered, and unfortunately, again do not have time to >dwell on this issue, that the idea that the brain creates our conscious >awareness is not contradictory to traditional occult ideas of transcendental >realities. however, by mixing the two viewpoints, a new viewpoint emerges that >is substantially different than either alone, and, not suprisingly, is a view in >complete harmony with the great mystical and religious truths of the aeons. > >amenable to either scientific proof or disproof. At least not in our time.> > >Again, I would only suggest you familiarize yourself with the evidence. When >you see the state of our current knowledge, you will come to appreciate that >such statements as this are no longer applicable. > >< But as they deal with matters spiritual they are not, and never >will be totally amenable to "scientific proof" at least not in the current >state of scientists. Any investigation, of any subject, must be open and >unbiased> > >And the flip side to this is, again, that you, or people with similar interests >and background, make the effort to familiarize yourself with current evidence >and thinking. You will see that scientific ideas are not biased, that they are >driven by necessity (for example, trying to determine how to treat a victum of >brain damage). You must ask yourself: as an occultiust who makes a claim to >understanding the human constitustion, how would you personally deal with a >person who has suffered brain damage? How would your ideas be of practical >value in helping such a person? > >This is really worth thinking about. > >So, I will close here. Again, I thank you for the exachange of ideas. My best >regards and wishes. > >Dr. DeGracia >(But everybody just calls me "Don"...really!) > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 03:44:17 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:44:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606234416_320864666@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Daniel, Happy to do so if you can give a few days to dig in my files. Most the work in this area was done by Charles Tart and Russel Targ and they have written a considerable amount on the subject. I do know that remote viewing was used to find an American general kidnapped in Italy, in the early '80's, I believe. It was also used, with somewhat less success, in the scud hunt during the Iraq war. It seems that remote viewing is no more capapble of distinguishing between real missles and dummies than standard intelligence. Anyway, I'll dig for the specific references and send them along as soon as I find them. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 03:45:18 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:45:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606234517_320865537@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck Alex, Remote viewing with that kind of accuracy is difficult even with my equipment. If I had access to the equipment used by my opposition in the Hillerman Affair a few years back it would be a piece of cake. That machinery can digitalize what the viewer is seeing and throw it onto a screen as well as record it on cd-rom. I'm trying to get the woman to write about her experience in that affair. But you're right it's the same as the Amazing Randi challenge, and bearing in mind that they will cheat rather than lose the money, it hardly seems worth the effort. Chuck MTI, FTSA From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 6 03:37:25 1996 Date: 05 Jun 96 23:37:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: RE: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: Especially directed to Don G. Alexis Message-Id: <960606033725_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> Dr. M: >As someone who has experienced this phenomenon of OOBE=soul travel=astral >projection=lucid dreaming for some 25 years (they are all the same) Right off the bat, in the very first sentence, the author is mistaken. I have experienced both lucid dreaming and astral travel, and they are definitely not the same thing. When I find this kind of mis-information at the beginning of an article, I tend not to finish the article as not worthy my time. I would say that Dr. M.'s 25 years have been wasted. They are only "the same" in the sense that they may be astral experiences, or experiences on the astral plane. But the mechanics are different, and the subjective responses can be very different, and the locations can be very different (i.e., an OOBE can be in any sphere of effect or sphere of cause, while lucid dreaming is almost always within our own sphere of effect). An OOBE can be a mystical experience, while a lucid dream cannot be. > Neither I nor >anyone else has ever produced evidence for knowledge at a distance during >a lucid dream or out of the body experience. Period. This second sentence is also misleading, and a scientific disgrace because how can Dr. M. ever hope to account for "anyone else." The fact that he was unable to do so, only reveals his own inadequacies. Let me give but one example: My grandfather was once dozing in his living room chair. All of a sudden, he "dreamed" that he saw his only living brother waving goodbye to him. He instantly woke, and knew that his brother (not a twin) had just died. This was confirmed shortly thereafter by a phone call. So, it can, and does, happen to many many people. My grandfather was a Catholic, and a pharmacist, and was not a psychic by any means. This is as far as I have been able to read, so I will stop here. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 6 03:37:38 1996 Date: 05 Jun 96 23:37:38 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Owls and Vultures (to Eldon) Message-Id: <960606033737_76400.1474_HHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Eldon: >The "sheep versus wolves" analogy does not sit right with me. >There's an unsavory connotation that those mining for gold in the >theosophical doctrines -- taking a Platonic or Jnana Yoga approach >-- are passive followers, people avoiding a real experience of >life. This is simply untrue. The analogy doesn't sit well with me either. It actually came from Bjorn. All I did was ad lib on his theme. I would suggest that your "unsavory connotation" is all too true, unfortunately. But I would also say that the avoidance of "real experiences" is but temporary. The reading and studying is all part of the Path, but it, by itself, is not enough. Sooner or later, the dog chasing its tail (and this too is a phase that must be gone through) will realize what it is doing. I am, of course, speaking from my own experience here, and it probably doesn't apply to everyone. However, it is true that one must experience real love in order to understand it, and experience real compassion before the teachings really start making sense. Without actually being compassionate on a daily basis, the teaching of the bodhisattva is only an intellectual exercise. And the whole point to jnana yoga is to reach the crisis point or catharsis where the realization dawns that the human mind seeking after truth is like a dog chasing after its own tail. Only then will consciousness be able to bypass the mind itself (manas) and look within to the higher planes (atma- buddhi). BTW, I never intended to suggest that wolves were better than sheep, or vice versa. I think that as we go along over multiple lifetimes, we enter periods where we act as both, alternately. Sheeps are relatively at rest. Wolves are relatively in motion. We periodically go through both phases as we peregrinate. >If I were making an analogy, I'd make it the owls versus the >vultures. No problem. The ancient Egyptians used the vulture as the primary symbol for motherhood and thought they were self-created. The vulture symbolizes self-expression, which is exactly what I feel is the purpose of life. So, while owls read and study over creativity, the vultures are busy doing it. (I can twist analogies around too ) > Early this century, for example, there was a >scientific theory that waves like light needed a substance to >propagate through space. This was called "ether". Leadbeater >picked up on this theory and his writings embraced it. You, like everyone else, keep picking on CWL. Yes, there is no "ether" in the sense in which it was originally described. But today's science now knows for certain that there is no such thing as empty space or a vacuum. Space is filled with "plasma" or "virtual particles" or "fields" and so on. I think CWL intuitively knew that space couldn't be "empty" and picked up on the latest scientific evidence at the time. Even though there is no ether, CWL was right about no vacuum. I wonder what he (and HPB for that matter) would have come up with, if he had known about Bell's Interconnectedness Theory let alone quantum theory? >Another problem with Theosophy failing to take on and find wider >value with people is that there seems to be widespread rejection >of the spiritual-intellectual approach. It is possible with this >approach to have *real* experiences too. I think that I, and the other wolves/vultures would really enjoy hearing some examples of these experiences. This would probably help bridge the gap that now seems to exist between us. I do not reject the spiritual-intellectual approach, and I have already told about my own jnana-yoga experiences and how James Long helped me to stop and smell the roses. So I am saying that jnana-yoga is a real valid path, based on my own experience. But jnana-yoga, and the spiritual- intellectual path are not intended to keep us reading and studying for lifetimes, but only up to the moment of catharsis or what is today called a "spiritual emergency" (the DSM-IV acknowledges this, at long last, and largely due to Ken Wilber and others). Thus I see it as a step along the Path, and have never tried to denigrate it. I am, rather, simply trying to encourage those on it to move along. > Hence, we hear >lots of talk of some psychic vision or out-of-the-body experience >as "real experience" and inner experiences of the other kind as >the "fantasy" of people with mere book learning and "no real >experience". Or we hear that the fruits of meditation are "mere >imagination" whereas psychical sight is actual experience, and not >equally-subjective and possibly hallucination, the visual >equalivent to imagination! Well, I can only speak for myself, Eldon. I have never tried to deliberately induce a psychic experience, but I will admit that somethimes they come upon me unaware. My own feeling, as you know, is that all experience is valid, and all experience tends to support and validate our wolrdview. Any experience that can't be assimilated, must either be ignored--a psychic disaster--or we have to adapt our worldview--not an easy or pleasant experience either. When Bjorn says that he has met Jesus, I believe him, albeit I doubt that it was the same biblical personage that began Christianity. And I have never denigrated meditation, for which I not only have high regard, but I consider it mandatory. I also take Jung's position that there is no such thing as "mere" imagination. Imagination is the mechanism that makes all magical experiences (and all life is magical) possible. > Were it not for this *denial* >of reality to non-psychic inner development, I think we'd have far >less disagreements on theos-l. Here you are obviously speaking from your own perspective. I would say that the other side of the coin is also true--if it were not for this *denial* of all psychic reality, I think we'd have far less disagreements on theos-l. I have never complained about the spiritual-intellectual approach, and am a living example of how jnana-yoga can actually work (at least to some extent, I hope). But when you tell people to ignore psychism when it comes to them, I think that this is wrong, albeit it is exactly G de P's own methodology. I simply don't agree with G de P on this one. The story of Gopi Krishna is an excellent example of what can happen to someone who meditates and rouses Kundalini when unprepared for it. We need to help people become prepared, to avoid this kind of thing. I suspect that less messages on the dangers of psychism (which I don't deny per se, but feel are overrated), and more on its mechanics and control, would also help end the conflict on theos-l. But we will never come together in any meaningful way if we can't openly discuss any and all subjects. So, even at the risk of flames, please don't feel that you can't write about psychism on theos-l. Yes, your response is apt to be some opposing viewpoints. But hey, thats what its all about. Jerry S. Member, TI From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Jun 6 04:14:04 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:14:04 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606060414.VAA20037@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To Kym: Quotes on how to study Theosophy and more on Isis Unveiled, etc. Kym, you write: >Dear Daniel, > >Thank you for your educational and informative reply to my query on >reincarnation and "Isis Unveiled." I am a member of the Theosophical >Society (Wheaton, IL), so it will be easy for me to obtain the books you >recommended. When you find the time could you post the quotes you spoke of >(or tell me where I can find them) and the titles of the articles by Ms. >Blavatsky? > >Also, what is the Blavatsky Foundation? > >Sincerely, > >Kym *************************************************************************** The quotes on how to study Theosophy are taken from THE MAHATMA LETTERS, 3rd ed.,: "...for a clearer comprehension of the extremely abstruse and at first incomprehensible theories of our occult doctrine, never allow the serenity of your mind to be disturbed during your hours of literary labor, nor before you set to work. It is upon the serene and placid surface of the unruffled mind that the visions gathered from the invisible find a representation in the visible world. Otherwise you would vainly seek those visions, those flashes of sudden light which have already helped to solve so many of the minor problems and which alone can bring the truth before the eye of the soul. It is with jealous care that we have to guard our mind-plane from all the adverse influences which daily arise in our passage through earth-life." Letter No. 11, p. 64. "...it was never the intention of the Occultists really to conceal what they had been writing from the earnest determined students, but rather to lock up their information for safety-sake, in a secure safe-box, the key to which is---intuition. The degree of diligence and zeal with which the hidden meaning is sought by the student, is generally the test---how far he is entitled to the possession of the so buried treasure." Letter No. 48, p. 275 "Knowledge for the mind, like food for the body, is intended to feed and help to growth, but it requires to be well digested and the more thoroughly and slowly the process is carried out the better both for body and mind." Letter No. 43, p. 258 ***************************************************************************** Some of the articles written by HPB in which she talks about Isis Unveiled, reincarnation, etc. are as follows: *"Seeming Discrepancies," The Theosophist, June, 1882 (Collected Writings, Vol. IV) *"Isis Unveiled and The Theosophist on Reincarnation," The Theos., August, 1882, (Col. Writ., Vol. IV) *"C.C.M. and Isis Unveiled," The Theos., Sept., 1882, (Col. Writ., Vol. IV) *"Theories About Reincarnation and Spirits," The Path, Nov, 1886, (Col. Writ., Vol. VII) Again, look at the index to the Mahatma Letters under the entry "Isis Unveiled"; you'll find in some of those references what M. and KH say about Isis and reincarnation. I am glad that you are committed to reading Isis. It is a neglected book even by students of HPB's writings. Christmas Humphreys once wrote: "Isis Unveiled....[has] been criticized, not least by the author herself, as containing a large number of errors and inconsistencies. True, the writer's English was still imperfect, and she had no experience in writing, but if the student, bearing this in mind, takes the trouble TO READ IT CAREFULLY, he will find that in this pioneer work is to be found a vast quantity of remarkable information." Caps added. Sometimes I think modern students have too many Theosophical books to choose from! Therefore there is this tendency to skim through books or to read a Theo- sophical book like one does Newsweek or the daily newspaper. One needs to read slowly, trying to get beneath or beyond the words to the ideas conveyed by the words. In reading Isis, I would suggest you read a page or two at a sitting and then go back over those same pages, first asking what are the major ideas or points outlined. Then asking more detailed questions. Looking up terms, etc. (For general terms, names ,etc. I constantly use the Micropaedia of the Brittannica.) Try to tune in to the vibrations lying concealed within the outer form of the book. Another way to pursue the reading of Isis involves studying the major ideas or core teachings being presented. For example, HPB spents page after page in Isis on the "constitution" of a human being: body, soul and spirit. Other terms for these three are also used in Isis. Psyche, ruach, soma, astral monad, Augoeides, the animal soul, etc. Using the index to Isis can also be quite useful. The Wheaton TPH ed. of Isis has a very extensive, useful index. I especially like the supplementary index to the Theosophy Co.'s edition of Isis. One could take the following major terms from this latter index and read the corresponding pages: Adepts, Astral Light, Buddha, Cycles, Ego, Elementals and Elementaries, Emanation, Evolution, God, Immortality, Law, Magic, Magnetism, Man, Matter, Mediums, Metempsychosis, Monad, Nirvana, Pre-existence, Reincarnation, Secret Doctrine, Self, Seven, Soul, Spirit, Spirits, Spirtualism, Trinity, Will. ***************************************************************************** The Blavatsky Foundation is a California non-profit corporation founded in 1968 by the late Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. The major purpose of the Foundation is to disseminate information on the life, writings and teachings of H.P. Blavatsky and to encourage individuals, whether members of existing Theosophical groups or not, to read and study HPB's works. The Foundation has a list of recommended titles which we will send you if you are interested. The list includes the best editions of HPB's writings and the "cream of the crop" titles that would help one to better understand HPB's life, work and teachings. The books selected in the bibliography have been published by the various Theosophical publishers as well as by non-Theosophical publishing houses. Hoping the above is of some use. Daniel From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 04:18:39 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:18:39 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606001838_408299277@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Core Teachings Jery, If one likes core teching stuff, it's harmless enough. Whenever someone asks me what theosophists believe in I say that that varies , we have no central belief other than humans are capable of spiritual evolution, however many ways we define it and then we argue from there. We also believe in divine wisdom, but as few of us are divine (I know, I come close, you don't have to remind me) we haven't got the foggiest notion of what it is. Then after they stop laughing I can try to explain the concept of the Search. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 04:19:32 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:19:32 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606001929_408299858@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Two general questions Kym, Actually, the reaction to me was surprise. Sort of "Brotherhood? You?" Fortunately I have no fundamentalist friends, only fundamentalist enemies (they once called me agent of the Antichrist on television) so I don't have to worry about them. The biggest problem I have is with one friend who is a staunch materialist right out of the 19th century and thinks anything spiritual is a waste of time. But as he is so set in his ways I see no point in getting into arguments with him, especially as I have to borrow his camcorder occasionally. With my "normal" friends (and by normal standards they are pretty abnormal) I have no trouble at all. Most of them already know about theosophy and if they have any problem with it it's that they think it a bit old-fashioned for them. So I spend a lot of time explaining that individual theosophists are far more interesting than the old books. Chuck MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 6 04:19:45 1996 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:19:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TSA? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message <2.2.32.19960605182554.006cf550@mail.slip.net>, alexis > dolgorukii writes > >The TSA has for too long been monopolized by a small and >>>clip>>> > If I understand Sy correctly, it may be that the laws of Illinois (or > even Federal law) could be in direct conflict with the articles of > association of the T.S. (Adyar) - which would put the TSA in a similar > situation to Canada ... if so, one of them would have to change, or the > TSA would have to quit being a Section under Adyar rules ... >>> clip >>> There are two issues relating to this. First the Illinois Law and second is the Federal Tax Laws. The second is critical one from tax exempt status. Federal Tax laws do not allow a non US entity to control tax exempt organization. The control has to reside in the USA. So TSA cannot have a clause in the ByLaws which says whenever International Rules change, they automatically apply to TSA. As changes take place in International Rules, they have to be submitted to the membership for voting per the bylaws of TSA per Illinois Laws and has to be approved by members by majority votes. Then only the International Rule change can be reflected in the Bylaws of TSA. If members do not approve a change, then the change cannot be applied in administering TSA. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of some people as if International Rule overrides the TSA Bylaws by virtue of the Charter provided by the International Headquarters. If Federal Tax laws are violated, then it could have serious retroactive tax consequences. What is even more serious is, if there is any hint of any indirect control of the TSA from Adyar, this could be investigated by Federal Tax Authorities and as such investigations are made under penalties of perjury. If such control can be proven, then Federal Tax authorities may vigorously investigate and it may lead to action from Illinois State authorities. While I am not a lawyer, (BTW Sy is), this is the general scenario and it would be in the interests of TSA to be aware of all these implications. ....Ramadoss From RIhle@aol.com Thu Jun 6 04:39:03 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:39:03 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960606003902_128931380@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Core Teachings Jerry S. writes> > Now, I know that we will not get a consensus >agreement of these Core Teachings here on Theos-l, >but this does seem like a good place to start. Now, first >of all, I want to assure everyone that we are talking about >Theosophy (cap T) here. As much as some of us are >opposed to any core teachings at all, it is essential to >define "Theosophy" for newbies, advertising, and so on. >Because after we respond with the three Objectives and >the requirement for universal brotherhood, the question >always surfaces about "Yes, but what do theosophsts >believe in? What is your doctrine? " Richard Ihle writes> Capitalized ~Theosophy~ has already been defined by John Algeo, Eldon, and others as basically those ideas found in the writings of HPB (and perhaps a few other associated materials). John even seems to want to make the ~Theosophical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~ officially stand for just this definition; Eldon has never actually gone that far, but one suspects that this development would not disappoint him. I have more or less given up trying to persuade people that capitalized ~Theosophy~ should be restricted to two meanings: 1) the organization/movement, and 2) the ineffable universal--Theo-Sophia. The "convenient habit" of simply referring to the ideas in THE SECRET DOCTRINE etc. as "Theosophy" seems just too well-established. If I cannot get someone whom I respect as highly as you to consider the crystalizing implications of this undoubtedly E.S.--approved usage, I know I am defeated. However, other than for the purpose of possibly formally announcing that you are "signing on" with the majority in regard to the capital ~T~, I guess I do not understand the intent of your post. Is it to suggest an alternative to the party line or something? In other words, do you possibly want to establish a ~fourth~ (!) definition for capitalized ~Theosophy~ to mean subject matter related to the topics you listed, irrespective of whether or not a person's understandings about their content/workings agree with HPB or not? If this is the case--oh, what the hell, I'll go along with you: maybe if we can get about a thousand definitions for capitalized ~Theosophy~ people will sooner or later throw them all out and take another look at the broad definition (basically stolen from multiple dictionaries) I offered for uncapitalized ~theosophy~: "Knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception." (By the way, I was interested that one of Eldon's posts on alt.theosophy--it has disappeared now for some reason--chose to define small ~t~ ~theosophy~ in an ultra-vague, short-shrift way as something like "an individual's spiritual path" rather than use any variant of the more substantial-sounding foregoing--which I know he has seen several times. It seems that "newbies" will get many definitions of both T/theosophies depending upon the purposes and generosity-toward-opponents of those who are there to help them. . . .) Anyway, Jerry, are you now numbered with those who feel there exists somewhere a properly catholic answer to the question "What do theosophists believe (!) in?" Godspeed, Richard Ihle From saf@angel.elektra.ru Thu Jun 6 07:04:09 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 14:57:20 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199606061058.AA21728@angel.elektra.ru> Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= >For: alexis dolgorukii Hello! a> Now I want to ask you which Rosicrucians are you referring to? This is a a> concept I have not heard before. I mean Max Haendel (? - in russian "Maks Gendel@") and his book "Cosmogonic Conception". When talking on evolution people think from "human" point of view. So they say that western civilization is "non-spiritual", and its progress is illusion. But they forget about other realms of nature. There are special devas who direct evolution of animal and plant realms, and humanity is "leading hierarchy" for mineral realm. When forging, melting, making chemical reactions, etc., people wake up consciousness of mineral forms. Because of that a hammer is important symbol in Masonery. BTW, people cannot succeed in creating "life" i.e. animals, plants and even cell because they're not a leading hierarhy for these realms. But they will when nowday's mineral forms evolve to plants. It will be more perfect plants than contemporary ones, and people in a mass will be more perfect than a hierarchy which directs a plants evolution nowdays. So humanity sacrifices its growth to benefit of mineral realm. a> to the "passive fatalism". It is a common Eastern notion that the only way a> to avoid "Bad Karma" is to do nothing (or nearly so). In any case I can see a> no real way in which dropping the idea of reincarnation would "speed up Where is the logic here? It only proves that fatalism is a result of misunderstanding of karma conception. Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita strongly criticizes doctrine of "doing nothing" but in spite of his authority this point of view is still popular in the east. So christian teaching puts an accent on a fact of "free will". Early christianity was very nice but it copied in many aspects the eastern teachings, making devotee a monk. It's like a communism - on contemporary state of consciousness it makes only troubles but "old-fashioned" and "cruel" capitalism gives more profit even to poorest people. a> "root races" supposition is that it is not supportable by science, Reincarnation too. a> and it is far too easily not simply misunderstood, Reincarnation too. In Agni-yoga there's "corrected" doctrine. World is probably ready to accept reincarnation but not other root races. So there's spoken only about "Atlantis" and not about "fourth race". a> and philosophers (I disagree entirely) who claim that Theosophy a> contributed to German Racial Theories. It's not a Blavatsky's theory but Fabre's de Olivet. His theory of races (not root races) meets closely Hitlers theory. In SD and Popol Vuh races change each another, but Fabre de Olivet wrote that they live in one time and compete. I didn't read Olivet myself but Papus refers to this theory in his books. The theory of "higher" and "lower" races was common in XIX century (for example see works of Friedrich Ratzel). The only HPB mistake was borrowing terms known from offici- al science for her own theory. If she used a word "humanity" instead of "race" and "contemporary" instead of "arian", her name would never been connected with nazis, but the meaning of SD remained the same. W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 6 12:38:15 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 07:38:15 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti (Jerry HE) In-Reply-To: <9606051956.AA06775@toto.csustan.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > >MKR: From what I have read and known from a friend who had known > >him for a long time, K never owned any car or for that manner > >anything except his clothing, a wallet and a couple of Patek > >Phillipe watches. I am sure the Benz you saw was not owned by > >him. > > JHE > Doss, you are splitting hairs. But technically, you are correct, > Krishnamurti did not own a car or anything else outside of > personal items. Everything is owned by KFA, a non profit > corporation dedicated to publishing everything K uttered. But if > you think that K lived in poverty or was materially deprived in > any way, you are very mistaken. Actually, I think having full > use of everything one needs and desires, yet having everything > belong to a non profit corporation is better than owning > anything. You get free use of everything yet you don't have to > buy it, pay taxes on it or even pay for its upkeep. > > MKR > >He always used to travel in First Class and he was asked why he > >did so when Gandhi travelled in Third (Lowest) Class. His > >response was that he would like to see everyone travel in First > >Class. An incident that Ravi Ravindra witnessed (and has written > >about) showed that K was at ease in most affluent surroundings > >as well as in the most simplest ones which should not be > >overlooked. > > JHE > Which very well makes my point. Krishnamurti was not one who > sacrificed any personal comforts. To say the least, he lived in > far better material comfort than the average American wage > earner. He was at ease in affluent surroundings because those > are the surroundings he has lived in since he was taken into the > TS's care. Krishnamurti was a globe trotter from childhood. > These kind of people become very sophisticated about being at > ease in all different surroundings. MKR: I think there is an aspect that is relevant. If K had a full-time job as a worker in a factory or some other place so that he is tied up with making a living to keep himself above waters, it would not have been possible for him to travel and lecture as he did for sixty years. From what I had known, he always travelled to places at the invitation of people who wanted him to come down and speak. > > JHE > >>On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and > >>some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >MKR: Can you amplify what these are? Only legal maneuvers I > >know of Rajagopal (who BTW is a lawyer educated and trained in > >London) and the K Trusts happened on account of the suit filed > >by the Attorney General of CA and the new K Foundation against > >Rajagopal and the old K Charitable Trusts. Later, Rajagopal and > >the Trustees sued K and the Trustees of the current KFA. > >Interestingly enough, one of those Trustees who was sued by Atty > >General of CA (and has the unique honor of suing Krishnamurti > >and others) is a member of TSA and was an elected Board Member > >of TSA and is currently an appointed Board Member of TSA. > > JHE > Yes, there has been quite a history of lawsuits around KFA. They > go in one ear and out the other for me. The "really slick > maneuver" I had in mind was Ragagopal's claiming that EVERYTHING > Krishnamurti said or wrote in his entire life belongs to the > Foundation. Lady Emily got into this problem in the 1950's with > CANDLES IN THE SUN, when she was going to publish some personal > letters to her from Krishnamurti. She was told that she had no > legal right to publish those letters--that the content of those > letters belong to the Foundation. That was a slick move in the > 1950's and was without precedent. It wasn't until thirty years > later with the legal battle over the ownership of J.D. Salanger's > personal letters to others that KFA's claim was ever really > tested. Now I call that slick. Rajagopal was the type of lawyer > I would want on my side if I got into a legal tangle. > > JHE > >>So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time > >>in all `his' opinions?" I don't know. The odds are that CWL > >>had to have been right about some things. But it is clear to > >>me that Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right > >>about. > > >MKR: I agree that CWL was not right about CWL's expectation how > >K is going to teach with the help of the Apostles created in > >LCC. > > MKR > >However, K's ideas and discussion of various matters dealing > >with human issues has arrested the attention of a large number > >of people and based on what I see on the K's maillist, they have > >helped and affected the lives of many. This contribution of his > >is important to be taken into consideration. Anyone interested > >may want to subscribe to listening-l and see for themselves. > > JHE > No doubt K has changed the lives of many. No doubt, there are > many more who have been unaffected by him. But how does this > make him any different from the many other spiritual teachers? > Please understand that I have no criticism of K or of his > message. But I find it very strange to see so many people > following and hanging on to every word uttered by a man who kept > telling everybody not to follow him or to hang onto his words. > MKR: I understand. I have had the experience of taking some of my friends to listen to him. There were two types of reactions. Many, after attending his lecture were so shaken up about their beliefs, then never again came to listen to him. Others want to hear more. A small minority was in the middle. > JHE > >>He was surrounded by tutors and had > >>the opportunity to go to the best schools in the world. He > > MKR > >As far as I have read, I do not think he ever went any of the > >*best* schools. Have you found any specific details of the > >schools he attended? > > JHE > I said that he had the *opportunity.* K's experiences with > University life is well outlined by his biographers. Alexis' > post sort of summarizes them, but I didn't take the time to go > back through the documents, or even the biographies to confirm > his points, but they more or less reflect what I recall: > > >As I understand it: Krishnamurti attended but did not > >matriculate at the Universite de Paris (The sorbonne) and The > >university of Wurzburg (as did I) and attempted to Matriculate > >at Oxford but was driven from the school by the hostility of the > >other students who made very cruel fun of "The Little Avatar". > >Announcing a boy to be "The second Coming" and sending that same > >boy to a public school is a very cruel and thoughtless act. > > My understanding is that the above mentioned Universities are > world class i.e. the "best schools." They are attended by the > children of the most privileged families. I wish I could have > had such opportunities. But alas, I'm hardly from a privileged > family--let alone an educated one. > MKR: From my personal experience, I went to one of the academically *worst* schools in India. But it was one which produced many of the current day politicians in S. India. The School also had the unique history of hosting a meeting to receive HPB and CWL when they returned to India at the time of Coloumb controversy. It was CWLs first visit to India. I have met and dealt with many who went to the Best schools in the world. I find nothing extra ordinary with those who went to the best schools. May be in some special technical areas, best school may give leading edge technical education. Many may not agree with my assessment/opinion. > JHE > >>I like > >>K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ? I > >>don't think so. > > MKR > >I don't think any one can be certain about whether he is the > >returned Christ or not. If he is the returned Christ, then you > >have the problem of the religions like Hindu, Buddhism, Moslem > >etc rejecting him because it is not their prophet or Avatar who > >is returning. Just a thought. If he really the returned Christ > >he would have had severe problems from the various Christian > >denominations all over world - some accepting and some > >rejecting. > > JHE > I only expressed my opinion. You are of course welcome to yours. > I have a rather extensive collection of very scarce Krishnamurti > material here. Some of it is from a very early point in his > career when he was promoted as the returned Christ. The Churches > gave the TS a lot of flack about this claim early on so CWL and > AB quickly backed off on this and introduced the idea that he was > the vehicle for the "Maitreya," who was supposed to be the real > being behind many spiritual teachers including Jesus and the > Buddha. This shift removed them from the firing line of the > Churches and also gave K a more universal appeal. > > > JHE From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 6 14:07:40 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:07:40 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606061407.QAA26618@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Two general questions In message , kymsmith@micron.net writes >Dear friends in Theosophy, > >When you reveal to others that you have chosen the path of Theosophy, what >do you find to be the general (if there is one in your case) reaction to be? Some do know a little about it but usually in connection with Krishnamurti. Generally, people think it's some kind of sect or so or anyway a very difficult (obtruse) philosophy > >Also, how would you, when asked to define it, explain it in an 'compact, >cocktail-party' kind of way? Is it even possible to do so? Well, sometimes I give a little bit of information, bit by bit and not too technically. The Spiritual is something that many people still can relate too (I mean when talking on such topics). Also I refer them to introductory books. I don't try to 'convert' anybody of course. That would be a horrible idea.. Martin From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 6 14:07:32 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:07:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606061407.QAA26589@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis Alexis> Thank you for your many kindnesses to me in this posting. I appreciate it more than you can know. Martin> You're quite welcome and you needed it. Alexis> >>>>>>>>> cut <<<<<<<<<< Both the Bishop and Annie Besant are long passed away, but their influence on the society, which I view as pernicious, has not. I cannot explain why I consider that influence to be pernicious if I cannot discuss the source of the influences. Is that not so? It is also, I think, impossible to have any kind of rational discussion when one party is basing their discussion of history and the public record and the other party is basing the discussion on the Akashic Records as "read" by a friend. Is this not so? Martin> Yes and Yes. Alexis>Now I hope this gives you a better idea where I am coming from. Martin> Sure. To Alan: you wrote effectively the same as Alexis and I agree with your message. I'm wondering, though, very much, if any of your attemps to get across to the TSA members will succeed. How many are subscribed to this list? And how many will subscribe to alt.theosophy? Seems that TI has a lot of work to do .. Martin From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 6 14:07:46 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:07:46 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606061407.QAA26634@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Core Teachings Jerry S> "seven luminous jewels or paths or keys to the temple of truth." These are: 1. Reinbodiment 2. Karma 3. Hierarchies 4. Swabhava (self-becoming) 5. Evolution 6. Two Paths (amrita-yana, the Path of Bliss, and pratyeka-yana, the Path for Oneself) 7. Atma-Vidya (knowledge of self) Now, I know that we will not get a consensus agreement of these Core Teachings here on Theos-l, but this does seem like a good place to start. Now, first of all, I want to assure everyone that we are talking about Theosophy (cap T) here. As much as some of us are opposed to any core teachings at all, it is essential to define "Theosophy" for newbies, advertising, and so on. Martin comments: indeed, and that's just what I have been doing on the Spiritweb. The seven jewels look fine to me, although they are not the final word of what's theosophy is all about or what's the spiritual all about. I mean, only a *beginning* of an exposition of the jewels has been given by HPB and GdP. The real esoteric knowledge is not given IMO and most of that comes through experience anyway. Jerry S>The only one of G de P's 7 categories that I would oppose is swabhava, which is one of my main objections to G de P's writings. He extolls the virtues of swabhava, and considers it a wonderful thing, because it leads to individualization. Buddhism, both Mahayana and Theravada oppose swabhava, and consider it the chief cause of our mayavic world--the great Heresy of Separateness. Swabhava is a four-letter word in Buddhism. Martin comments: According to GdP there's also a school of 'swabhavika's' in Buddhism, only, they have a too materialized version of swabhava. I see no problem with the teaching on swabhava. It is, however, not very clearly exposed by GdP. I think it has relations with the concept of skandha's, a clearly Buddhistic concept. What do you think? From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 6 14:09:38 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:09:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606061409.QAA26895@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? A belated post for Chuck: > >Chuck>I don't think I've ever done kickboxing, with psionics count? > >Martin comments: anything goes.. > From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 15:28:01 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:28:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606112800_211735094@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Bye Bye Quest Alan, At convention a couple of years ago, some folks from the Milwaukee Lodge mentioned that they gave a copy of the Quest to all of their speakers. I immediately asked if any of them ever came back. They were not amused, but everyone else was. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 15:28:09 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:28:09 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606112807_211735145@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TSA? Alan, I wonder what your British law has to say on the subject. Adyar could lose all its sections except India and the Pakistanis will take care of that once they get the bomb. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 15:28:12 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:28:12 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606112810_211735158@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Krishnamurti Alan, And we must not forget an even greater bore, Horatio Costa who claims to have spent years at the feet of Krishnamurti. He used him for a footstool! :-) Be thankful you never heard Horatio. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 15:28:15 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:28:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606112813_211735181@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Owls and Vultures (to Eldon) Jerry, I think this animal analogy thing is going to get us into terrible trouble. After all, vultures are high-flying birds that circle the desert rather than live on the ground, while owls eat mice. We could have lots of fun with that, except our friend Eldon is a vegetarian. It is true that theosophists come in various types and that is what makes theosophy so interesting. Just think how horrible it would be if everyone agreed with me! The thought makes the blood run green. Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From blafoun@azstarnet.com Thu Jun 6 18:34:39 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:34:39 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606061834.LAA29574@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck >Alan, >This discussion borders on the bizarre for the simple reason that remote >viewing is considered reliable enough to be a standard intelligence >procedure. >If the out of body experience is nothing more than an hallucination, then a >lot of us are in serious trouble. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > > Chuck, I have just found out that Dr. Mike Mueckler (I hope I am spelling his last name correct!) has offered a challenge to the Eckists and probably to anyone else that he will pay $10,000 to anyone who can correctly read the 6 digits taped on the mirror of his dresser in his bedroom. I assume the challenge is still in effect. ARE YOU WILLING TO TRY? You could use an extra $10,000? : ) I hope the dollar amount is correct!. Daniel P.S. Dr. M.'s e-mail address is: mike@cellbio.wustl From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 22:58:58 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 15:58:58 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606225858.006e19c4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Core Teachings At 05:02 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >I have more or less given up trying to persuade people that capitalized >~Theosophy~ should be restricted to two meanings: 1) the >organization/movement, and 2) the ineffable universal--Theo-Sophia. The >"convenient habit" of simply referring to the ideas in THE SECRET DOCTRINE >etc. as "Theosophy" seems just too well-established. If I cannot get someone >whom I respect as highly as you to consider the crystalizing implications of >this undoubtedly E.S.--approved usage, I know I am defeated. Alexis literally begs: Please Richard, don't feel defeated, there are many people, I'm sure I'm not alone, who totally agree with the definition of Theosophy you give in the above paragraph, and who are terrified of the "crystallizing implications of the approved usage". > > >If this is the case--oh, what the hell, I'll go along with you: maybe if we >can get about a thousand definitions for capitalized ~Theosophy~ people will >sooner or later throw them all out and take another look at the broad >definition (basically stolen from multiple dictionaries) I offered for >uncapitalized ~theosophy~: > >"Knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from >transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception." Alexis comments: Richard, I don't think I've ever seen a clearer or more succinct definition of theosophy than that. > >Anyway, Jerry, are you now numbered with those who feel there exists >somewhere a properly catholic answer to the question "What do theosophists >believe (!) in?" > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > Alexis adds: Richard I really doubt that Jerry would be included in that number. He's far too wise. If we are to judge the answer to the question: "what do Theosophists believe in?" by either this list, or the relatively inchoate alt.theosophy, then there's a really ridiculous number of "alternative theosophies". alexis > > > > > > > > > > > > From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 6 22:58:21 1996 Date: 06 Jun 96 18:58:21 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Chuck) Message-Id: <960606225820_76400.1474_HHL32-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >If one likes core teching stuff, it's harmless enough. Yes, it is. Its all exoteric and directed at newbies to hold their attention. I just read the stats on newbies joining "new religions or cults" and it is that the average leaves after 2 years. Thats probably true for Theosophy as well. The idea is to give them something to sink their teeth into that will still have some taste left after two years of mastication. > Whenever someone asks >me what theosophists believe in I say that that varies , we have no central >belief other than humans are capable of spiritual evolution, however many >ways we define it and then we argue from there. Right. The normal result today is an argument. We see this very clearly on theos-l. >We also believe in divine wisdom, but as few of us are divine (I know, I come >close, you don't have to remind me) we haven't got the foggiest notion of >what it is. According to some stats I came across, 30% to 40% of the general public in the USA have had a mystical experience. Also, the phenomenon of Kundalini rising automatically is increasing. In fact, psychism is on the rise so much that the DSM IV has now included "spiritual emergence", "spiritual emergency" as well as "spiritual problem" into its domain (on Axis V, I believe). You can now go to a shrink or therapist with a psychic or spiritual problem and be covered. All of this shows the need for a theosophical approach to helping these people (which is what JRC has been saying). >Then after they stop laughing I can try to explain the concept of the Search. I agree that the Search is an important concept. But there are so many approaches to it, that any discussion is certain to end in arguments and shouts of anger. The idea of core teachings is an attempt to reduce the arguments and in-fighting that is going on today within the theosophical community. The advantage is greater harmony. The disadvantage is less freedom of thought. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 6 22:58:36 1996 Date: 06 Jun 96 18:58:36 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Two general questions Message-Id: <960606225836_76400.1474_HHL32-3@CompuServe.COM> >When you reveal to others that you have chosen the path of Theosophy, what >do you find to be the general (if there is one in your case) reaction to be? Horror. My family and friends were either Christian Scientists or fundamentalists, and all were taught that Theosophy is Satanic. Mary Baker Eddy was much against it. She wrote that "nothing good will ever come out of the East." (HPB didn't have much good to say about Christian Science either). Most of my family is gone now, but I have learned to speak little about Theosophy to anyone, but rather to act as a theosophist without talking about it. I only discuss it when asked, which is not often. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 6 22:58:38 1996 Date: 06 Jun 96 18:58:38 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Core Teachings Message-Id: <960606225838_76400.1474_HHL32-4@CompuServe.COM> Martin: >According to GdP there's also a school of 'swabhavika's' in Buddhism, >only, they have a too materialized version of swabhava. >I see no problem with the teaching on swabhava. It is, however, not very >clearly exposed by GdP. I think it has relations with the concept of skandha's, >a clearly Buddhistic concept. > >What do you think? Swabhava is itself a material concept, and it would be difficult to have a "too materialized version" of it. The way I see it, swabhava is an important principle along the Arc of Descent, but is an interferring obstacle along the Arc of Ascent. I can only wonder why G de P didn't think of that, except that he uses it to reinforce his idea about gaining self-consciousness at the end of this manvantara. While it is true that we gain self-consciousness, its also true that this is the resultant of every manvantara, and that the whole "divine breath" is a circle, not a spiral. Swabhava guides the skandhas. It gives them a sense of direction, so that our skandhas gradually shape us (i.e., our lower selves) into self-consciousness. The problem with self-consciousness is that it separates us from everyone and everything else. The original dualistic split between subject and object, or Self and Not-Self, is the impetus that started our manvantara in the first place. So, I see self-consciousness as the hallmark of the first 3 1/2 Rounds. Self-consciousness is the pivotal point at the lowest end of the manvantaric spectrum of consciousness. The second half of a manvantara is involved with re-uniting Self and Not-Self again. This exact sequence of events is also seen in miniature during our lifetime. We are born in a neonatal condition of samadhi, with no concept of Self or Not-Self. Then a sense of self develops, followed by definition, which results in a separate personality. Then we tread the spiritual Path, at the end of which, Self is once again united with Not-Self, and we once again enter samadhi. As an Adept, we become as a little child, as Jesus puts it, and thus the circle is completed. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 6 22:58:32 1996 Date: 06 Jun 96 18:58:32 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to RI) Message-Id: <960606225832_76400.1474_HHL32-2@CompuServe.COM> Richard: >Capitalized ~Theosophy~ has already been defined by John Algeo, Eldon, and >others as basically those ideas found in the writings of HPB (and perhaps a >few other associated materials). John even seems to want to make the >~Theosophical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~ officially stand for just this >definition; Eldon has never actually gone that far, but one suspects that >this development would not disappoint him. I have no real objection to Algeo here. The problem is that we have an organization that espouses something called Theosophy, but the various members of the organization can't decide what this Theosophy is. So how can we expect the general public to understand what the organization is all about? I am seeing this from a prgamatic perspective, rather than doctrinal or theoretical. An organization needs to be defined in a way that the public can understand, if it expects to survive. However, if we do define cap T in this way, then we must define little t in the broader sense. I think we get into organizational problems when we try to define cap T as both specific to HPB *and* the broader theo-sophia. >I have more or less given up trying to persuade people that capitalized >~Theosophy~ should be restricted to two meanings: 1) the >organization/movement, and 2) the ineffable universal--Theo-Sophia. As I noted above, when you have two meanings for one word, then the public (and maybe most of the membership?) will never know for sure which you mean. >However, other than for the purpose of possibly formally announcing that you >are "signing on" with the majority in regard to the capital ~T~, I guess I do >not understand the intent of your post. My intent was to suggest that *if* we separate T from t then we may as well go ahead and define T. This goes directly to Eldon's "core teachings." Keep in mind that these core teachings relate to T, not t. > In other words, do you possibly want to >establish a ~fourth~ (!) definition for capitalized ~Theosophy~ to mean >subject matter related to the topics you listed, irrespective of whether or >not a person's understandings about their content/workings agree with HPB or >not? No. This would lead to more confusion that we have now. G de P's list of 7 "jewels" is but one possible list of core teachings. Awhile back, Eldon and I attempted to list some "core teachings." When I read the latest Sunrise, I noted that G de P had already made up his own list of 7 (which is longer than Eldon's or my list, so why not use it?). In order to reduce the confusion, the list of core teachings must come from either HPB or the MLs (and maybe Judge, but I am not aware of anything new that he taught anyway). >"Knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from >transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception." This is a beautiful, and near-perfect, definition of theosophy. However, it is a very broad definition and allows for junk as well as helpful material. It would, for example, include virtually all channeled material, most of which is very conflicting. Our main reason for dividing up T and t is to try to reduce the confusion, not to increase it. For those who already Know, your definition is fine, because they can sift the chaff from the wheat. But Joe Sixpack would become so confused, he would leave the organization. In fact, it is the very nebulousness of the definition that allows such diversity under the TS "tent" as to render "Theosophy" a mish-mash (doctrines vs processes, for example). Now admittedly, this has its advantages and disadvantages, just like trying to define Theosophy has its advantages and disadvantages. > It seems that "newbies" >will get many definitions of both T/theosophies depending upon the purposes >and generosity-toward-opponents of those who are there to help them. . . .) Alas, this is true today, and is probably the reason why Alego wants to define Theosophy once and for all. >Anyway, Jerry, are you now numbered with those who feel there exists >somewhere a properly catholic answer to the question "What do theosophists >believe (!) in?" From a pragmatic organizational viewpoint, this is essential. However, I agree with you and Alexis and others that this was never the intent of the founders, who preferred it to remain a club for spiritual seekers of whatever persuasion. The way it is right now has advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that most people don't know what Theosophy is, or what theosophists "believe." Defining some core teachings, like Eldon suggests, helps to define what we are all talking about. The disadvantage is the tendency to become a religion, to become too defined and fossilized. But we are losing members now, and in danger of dying of our own weight. If the organizations are to survive, in some form or another, then if not by definition and clarification, what other methods would you suggest? Doing nothing is not working. So it seems clear that we need to do something. One thing I think really is in sad need of doing is to update the nomenclature. The truly wondrous postings lately on the planes vs bodies vs principles is an excellent example of the mess we are in right now. I don't know if there will ever be a "Catholic" or agreed upon set of doctrinal core teachings. But if there is, no TS can hold its members to them without losing even more than we have now. They must be offered up as suggestions or guidelines, while leaving most of the details to individual interpretation. For myself, as a member-at-large with TSP for years, I accepted the idea of "core teachings" as a matter of course. I had no problem with this because I knew that Theosophy as presented by HPB was only a part of theosophy, the T being exoteric and the t being esoteric. It has only been as a member of theos-l that I became aware of an opposing viewpoint. If we really want to open up to Joe Sixpack, then I think revising the terminology and developing a set of core teachings ("core" does not mean "only") is essential. If we want to remain as intellectuals without Joe Sixpacks in our midst, then we can stay just as we are. Maybe we should all ask, What and where do we theosophists really want to be? I think that TSP and ULT have already made their decisions. So, its really up to Adyar and Wheaton to decide what kind of future is in store for TSA. Jerry S. Member, TI From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 23:11:42 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 16:11:42 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606231142.006ee87c@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Two general questions At 05:04 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Dear friends in Theosophy, > >When you reveal to others that you have chosen the path of Theosophy, what >do you find to be the general (if there is one in your case) reaction to be? Well I hate to admit it but the basic and most common reaction is "Huh?" and unfortunately my primary associations socially are with the alternative religious community. Another reaction is: "Is that some kind of religion?" > >Also, how would you, when asked to define it, explain it in an 'compact, >cocktail-party' kind of way? Is it even possible to do so? (I tried >quoting the Three Declared Objects and the Theosopical World View - they >tend, for me, to bring blank looks upon the listeners - perhaps too wordy >for the situation) My "short form" definition is this: "It's a philosophy that encourages personal investigation of life and reality." > >Note: One individual who discovered I followed Theosophy has made it a >mission to rescue me from this "demon-worshipping cult." Seems Theosophy is >not appreciated in some very recent Christian literature. I was surprised >about the number of books (given to me by this individual) addressing >Theosophy with loathing. > >Thanks, > >Kym > There's a web page on Neo-Paganism (sponsored by the Christian Radical Right) which equates theosophy with some organizations that are really awful, like the Nazis. alexis> > From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 23:25:31 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 16:25:31 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606232531.006bdfdc@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis At 05:05 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Alexis, I hope you don't mean this. You would be the first human being to do >so. I don't think a human CAN base his opinion only on facts. Do you really believe that to be so? I know it isn't so and that there are millions of people just like me who prefer fact to fantasy. > > I have to tell you that I was entirely >>astonished that you could not see anything pernicious about an association >>with fascism. > >Yes, we are very different, you and I. I don't believe in fascism, and it >could well be that AB was having an improper association with this or that >fascist. Does that make her a fascist? Certainly not. It makes her a fascist sympathizer if not an actual collaborator , and that's all that can be said. >A lot of good people had friends that were both fascists and nazis, you know. No Bjorn: I don't "Know", in fact what I do know, is that not one single good person had friends that were Nazis or Fascists! There were no "good" fascists or Nazis and decent people had nothing whatsoever to do with them. A relation of mine was a judge at Nuremburg and he did the only possible thing to Nazis he had them hung! With this discussion we part company. Permanently. alexis > > > > > From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 6 23:22:26 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 19:22:26 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606192225_550907781@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What are the Masters doing? Martin, I'm happy to hear it. I'm a little too old to kick anything but buckets. Chuck MTI, FTSA From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 6 23:28:33 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 16:28:33 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960606232833.006e5600@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Bleat and Howl At 05:05 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >I have a rule never to read your postings until I have something in my belly, >otherwise I end up attacking the refrigerator. > >Chuck > >That's the danger of having a gourmet chef for a friend! I'll stop including menus. alexis From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 6 21:40:56 1996 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:40:56 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606062343.AA23980@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Chuck) At 07:02 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: The idea of core teachings >is an attempt to reduce the arguments and in-fighting that is going >on today within the theosophical community. The advantage is >greater harmony. The disadvantage is less freedom of thought. In order to convey a message effectively the message has to be defined. Do we have something to tell people? Are we interested in working together to do it? If the answer is yes, some kind of basic fundamental core has to be defined. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 6 23:42:48 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 00:42:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Definitions ... Mime-Version: 1.0 RACISM: The belief in the inherent superiority of one race over others and thereby the right to dominance. SEXISM: The belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over another and thereby the right to dominance. HETEROSEXISM: The belief in the inherent superiority of one pattern of loving and thereby the right to dominance. HOMOPHOBIA: The fear of feelings of love for members of one's own sex and therefore the hatred of those feelings in others. - All quotations from "Sister Outsider" by Audre Lorde. Uploaded by 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 Jun 7 00:35:56 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 01:35:56 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Krishnamurti In-Reply-To: <960606112810_211735158@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960606112810_211735158@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Be thankful you never heard Horatio. > >Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA OK. --------- 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 Jun 7 00:45:01 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 01:45:01 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: TI has a lot to do? In-Reply-To: <199606061407.QAA26589@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199606061407.QAA26589@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser writes >To Alan: you wrote effectively the same as Alexis and I agree with your > message. I'm wondering, though, very much, if any of your attemps > to get across to the TSA members will succeed. How many are > subscribed to this list? And how many will subscribe to alt.theosophy? > > Seems that TI has a lot of work to do .. > >Martin > > Major questions! I subscribed to alt-theosophy, but traffic so far is minimal. I agree that TI has a lot of work to do, but will the members get together and do it? Ideally TI needs its own Web page with its own links and its own Web identity - like "TI.org" or "TI.com". I asked Rudy to put some other links on the present page, but it is on his own Net provider, and so Rudy has control of it, and did not respond. For TI to really make an impact needs work done by its members, and some sort of income or sponsorship. Sponsorship would be best in some ways, so long as the sponsor(s) did not want to control what was put out. 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 Jun 7 00:16:26 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 01:16:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TSA? In-Reply-To: <960606112807_211735145@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960606112807_211735145@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >I wonder what your British law has to say on the subject. Adyar could lose >all its sections except India and the Pakistanis will take care of that once >they get the bomb. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA As far as I am aware, the non-profit nature of Adyar and its articles of incorporation are compatible in the UK. When the T.S. (Adyar) was incorporated, India was still part of the British Empire. 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 Jun 7 02:15:19 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:15:19 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960606211741.2d7f520e@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Kym: Quotes on how to study Theosophy and more on Isis Unveiled, etc. Dear Daniel; Your long post is one of the most useful I have seen here. It would be of great help to newbees and also it was a pleasure reading it for someone like me who have read it before in the books you have referred. It may be a good idea to post it to alt.theosophy, if you can access the newsgroup. Many cybespace surfers will hit the newsgroup before they hit the maillists. > Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Jun 7 02:38:28 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:38:28 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > I agree that TI has a lot of work to do, but will the members get > together and do it? Ideally TI needs its own Web page with its own > links and its own Web identity - like "TI.org" or "TI.com". I asked > Rudy to put some other links on the present page, but it is on his own > Net provider, and so Rudy has control of it, and did not respond. > > For TI to really make an impact needs work done by its members, and some > sort of income or sponsorship. Sponsorship would be best in some ways, > so long as the sponsor(s) did not want to control what was put out. Alan ... Well, for what its worth, I don't have very much $$$, and even less time, but I can write HTML code, and certainly could write the script needed to create & link a set of TI pages ... and if a project was made out of it, perhaps a number of us could contact other philosophical & spiritual organizations with Web pages & trade links (i.e., we put links to their organizations on one of our pages, and they put a link to ours on theirs - quite a common thing on the Web). Last time I checked, to register a domain name was somewhere around $500.00 US (i.e., to have an address that actually reads something like instead of piggybacking on another - e.g. . I'm not sure, however, that the cost is worth the benefits - as if the page is linked right ... it won't really lead to very many additional visits. The other possibility is ... if some kind TI member checked with their service provider - I know that some services *include* Web space as part of what a person gets when they sign up ... usually around 5 megs of memory space (far more than enough if the pages aren't graphic-intensive) .. so we may actually already have some members who could host the TI pages with no additional cost. Before even really beginning such an endeavor, however, there is a deeper issue to take up: What is out *intent* in putting the time and energy into "TI Web"? What, *specifically*, do we hope to accomplish? Who do we want to reach? What do we wish them to do when we reach them? *Who* will answer questions, and how will they be answered ... the members are all people who, for the most part, have had siginificant involvement with one or more theosophical organizations over the years - what happens when a newcomer - who may have only vaguely heard of theosophy, *asks* "What is TI?"? What do we say? "Well, you sign up!" Okay. Now what? Well, that's pretty much it (-:). Do we encourage people to do things? Read literature? *Which* literature? Do we encourage them to join theos-l? Tell them about the formal organizations? Which ones? How do we present them? We must also remember that the Web requires a very specific sort of presentation to be successful - think of it as the computing version of "channel - surfing" on a TV. *Most* who cruise the Web visit dozeens of sites every time they log on. It is most assuredly *not* a place for long, ornate philosophical statements (tho' I suppose one could create links to such things) at least in the initial pages. I mean ... we don't just want say "ooohhh, cool! Look! We have a Web page! - with the end result that we feel quite pleased with ourselves, but neglect to notice that hardly anyone visits it, those who visit quickly move on when faced with five pages of nothing but dense text, and the few who do make it through find they have no idea what to do once they've finished. Having worked with several non-profits in the creation of Web pages ... I've found it to be a *very* interesting process ... to be effective, the process *forces* the organization to clarify (often for the first time) exactly *what* face they want to present to the world at large - in a sense it is a form of "magic", as it is really nothing less than the *delibrate construction of a personality*. And that means everything must be taken into account: The page must be lively, with a reasonable balance between text and graphics; the text must be conscise, powerful, but written in approximately a high-school level of vocabulary (e.g., words like "Avalokiteswara" probably won't help the cause tee hee). We would want the pages to carry spiritual, intellectual, and emotional content, and have a pleasing physical appearance as well. (Sorry to be babbling here, and I must go `cause I'm *really* busy just now, but just thought I'd throw in my two cents as I just spent the last week writing a Web page for a group, and it's kinda on my mind right now. A TI Web page would be great, but we would really need to make a *project* of it if we want it to serve a *purpose* beyond simply having it ... something that many organizations never grasp. There is a lot of just outright *hype* about the Web, but just putting a page on doesn't mean anything. For instance (and this is not to say anything against Rudy who I kinda like) we already have Rudy's page ... but has anyone other us even visited it? Has, in short, *anything* come of it save TI visiting it once and saying "gee that's nice"? I don't mean to sound overly harsh here, but a failing that has plagued theosophical organizations for quite some time is that they continually start projects (often committing substantial resources to them) without ever even bothering to define what they want to accomplish, and in the rare cases where desired outcomes are vaguely defined, never check to see whether the outcomes have been accomplished - and I'd hate to see TI fall prey to that trait). Ta ta, -JRC From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 03:45:07 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:45:07 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606234506_320865401@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck Daniel, I could use 10 grand. I'll have to give this some serious thought. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 03:45:20 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:45:20 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606234520_320865582@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Chuck) Jerry, We will never end the arguing and the shouting. That is part of being a theosophist, our bull-headed independence. So rather than fight it, I think we should celebrate it for what it is, one of our great strengths. Let's be honest, no one is ever going to accuse theosophy of brainwashing. Hell, some of us don't even have brains to wash (Yoohoo, Horatio...) It is true we have turnover of about one third each year and the membership (at least TSA) stays about steady at between 4 and 5 thousand depending on how many people get mad about something in a given year (our big drop was the Bing Escudero debacle in 1990). This is normal I find it fascinating that psychic disasters can now be treated as mental illness in the same year that S/M is now considered normal human behavior. The shrinks have finally entered the 20th century, and not a year too soon since it's almost over. Now if we can do the same for the TS... Chuck MTI, FTSA Heretic Troublemaker From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 03:45:24 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:45:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960606234523_320865618@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: family reactions I was just musing over Jerry's little story about how horrified his family was when he announced that he had become a Theosophist. And we hear these stories all the time, so I think a slightly different story is in order. When I joined the TS the reaction was puzzlement. Joining an organization that espoused universal siblinghood seemed terribly out of character for me, as I always seemed like a total misanthrope. But once they got over that shock, the rest was no problem at all. They were actually rather happy about it and when an article about the Olcott HQ appeared in the Chicago Tribune my grandmother made a point of showing it to her neighbors explaining that that was where I hung out. Then, as they were quite elderly, their minister came over to visit them and Granny told him all about the TS and how much fun her grandson was having with it, and as he was UCC and had been out there, he was appropriately impressed. So not everyone has family troubles with this. Chuck MTI, FTSA From eva.moberg@sbbs.se Thu Jun 6 20:44:29 1996 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:44:29 +0200 From: Eva Moberg Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ULT Message-Id: <20442953110744@sbbs.se> It would be nice if anyone who reads this and who is particularly interested in studying the writings of H.P.B. and W.Q.J, could send me a few lines on the above email address. I am a member of the U.L.T. Malmoe, Sweden. From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Jun 7 14:33:09 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 10:33:09 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606071538.LAA18301@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Russian T.S. >To: liesel@dreamscape.com >Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 22:08:58 +0300 >From: Kay Ziatz >Reply-To: Kay Ziatz >Subject: Russian T.S. > > > Hello Liesel! > >>I belong to TS Adyar, but I also belong to the TS in Canada, which was >>expelled by Adyar. > Too? What for? >Maybe, for studying "Hiawatha"? :) > >>I think Adyar, at this point, is much too strict with >>their requirements for adnission of Russian theosophists. > > It would be not so bad if Adyar Society was only "one of >many". But when we talk about theosophists with non-theosop- >hists they associate it with Adyar headquarter. And if Adyar >does something wrong it automatically extends to all theosop- >hists in people's opinion. Because of that an acknowledgement >by Adyar is so important. > >> The Theosophists > on the Internet are not only Adyar Theosophists. >... >> the rules of TI are a modernized version of the 3 objects. > I think that these "three objects" are only important con- >ditions. And most Internet theosophists share them, i hope. > Some people say (in this list, too) that SD is wrong. But >it cannot be a ground for expellation. HPB is famous theosop- >hist, like Einstein is famous physicist. And physics in XX >century is associated with name of Einstein. But if his theory >of relativity will be refutated, it will not be end of phy- >sics. Contrary, it will be a good progress for it! > And studying other teachings cannot be cause of expellati- >on, too. Because of second object of TS imposes to study dif- >ferent teachings. I would better expell those who doesn't :) >BTW, russian orthodox church expelled HPB (and all her follo- >wers, too) two years ago. Since orthodox church doesn't accept >reincarnation, HPB is now only under God's jurisdiction. So >they placed themselves higher than God (or began believe to >reincarnation, which is heresy, too). :) > What I am all this writing for? HPB wrote in "Isis unvei- >led" that there's more than 400 christian sects in USA. I af- >raid that theosophists can "catch up & leave behind" as soviet >enthusiasts of 30's said. > Have theosophists ever trying to fix this situation? Here, >using Internet, we have wider possibilities than before. Those >who are Adyar-F.T.S. can organize letter campaign to Adyar he- >adquarter in order to force Adyar officials begin the reinteg- >ration process. I don't mean full reintegration but signing >something like a "charter" on mutual acknowlegement between >all theosophical & semi-theosophical lodges. Since theosop- >hists are divided, their talks about "forming nucleus of brot- >herhood" seem funny for other people, as well as other doctri- >nes especially if latter were indeed a cause of separation. > >> about agni yoga. I've heard of it, but I don't know what it is. Is it=20 >the >> theosophy of Mme. Roerich? It's very possible that Adyar doesn't accept > Yes. It seems to me a little strange teaching. It's devotees >say that it's more for heart than for mind. They don't accept >Bailey & Leadbeater. There are 14 volumes: > > 1. Call (M. garden leaves, part I) 1924 > 2. Illumiination (M. g. l. part II) 1925 > 3. Community 1926 > 4. Signs of Agni-Yoga 1929 > 5. Unlimiteness (part I) 1930 > 6. Unlimiteness (part II) 1930 > 7. Hierarchy 1931 > 8. Heart 1932 > 9. Fireworld (part I) 1933 > 10. Fireworld (part II) 1934 > 11. Fireworld (part III) 1935 > 12. Aum 1936 > 13. Brotherhood 1937 > 14. Overterral (Brotherhood part II) 1938 > >I have all these in Russian, in ascii files. If someone of >subdcribers knows russian he could obtain them from: > www.topaz.kiev.ua ~/users/kirill >But this server may close down soon. >Some of these books are translated to English but I don't know which. > >W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet >--- Golded? He=D4.=20 > * Origin: Nonsense (2:5020/360.4) > > > From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Jun 7 14:34:24 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 10:34:24 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606071539.LAA18384@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Discussions >To: liesel@dreamscape.com >Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 22:08:24 +0300 >From: Kay Ziatz >Reply-To: Kay Ziatz >Subject: Discussions > >L> some more dragging Leadbeater through the mud, and now you're starting= =20 >in > ^Y >L> dragging. Well, without me. Good-bye. > > Dear Liesel! > > Don't you forget that participating in this list isn't only >your personal duty but a work for a benefit of other prople, too. >Think it over once again, please. >We in our newsgroup SU.MAGIC often meet much worser opinions about >HPB that you've read here about Leadbeater, but we still don't leave. >"Shutting up" isn't good method for a theosophist, i think. > >Since you unsubscribed i forvard you a copy of me message - >you probaly will not see it otherwise. > > Konstantin. >--- Golded? He=D4.=20 > * Origin: Nonsense (2:5020/360.4) > > > From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Jun 8 06:50:26 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:50:26 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608065026.00691ce4@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OBEs are hallucinations Don: The subject that you bring up is both informative and useful, as well as potentially misleading... First, as I understand it, all the seven (or twelve) principles are correlated. Something that happens in one of them affects all the rest. There is, while we're embodied, some changes reflected in the physical body for any inner state or experience. By a study of various brain states and their correlations with states of consciousness, we learn more about the inner man. We can see traces of experiences had deep within, when we examine the brain of a slumbering person. We basically keep coming back to the brain/mind controversy. Some people will insist that the mind is a byproduct of the brain's operation. Others will find the mind quite independent, and consider it as part of the being's life energies. The second viewpoint would consider that subtle essence of life as the force which organizes the physical body, causing a higher form of order to exist while being behind it, and bringing about death when it departs. How do we know that there is *something more*? By an inner connection to the higher part of ourselves, by a conscious awareness of that part of us that transcends our mortal body of flesh, that transcends our external personality. This comes ultimate through self-knowledge, arrived at by various spiritual practices including meditation. A belief that there is more to life than the physical world may be reinforced by OOBE's, but typical OOBE's are another form of sensory experience of the world, and not direct self-knowledge. And as with Mueckler we have an example where that belief, based upon paranormal experiences, has been held, then dropped away, leaving someone bereft of inner awareness. It would be nice to read a description of the various brain states and the corresponding states of consciousness. Do you have a paper, or could you write up a few notes on them for theos-l? -- Eldon From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 8 01:24:22 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 02:24:22 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <2n0hMZAGZNuxEw5b@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI first object In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Regarding the message below, response has been small. Of those who responded, four were firmly in favor. Three saw no need for change. Two proposed a completely different wording altogether, and three suggested that the inclusion of the word "universal" was superfluous in the present version. The net result, such as it is, is indecisive, so the TI first object stands unaltered. The majority of Internet TI members, most of whom were asked individually by e-mail, failed to respond at all. Alan In message , Alan writes > >It has been proposed that the TI first object could be better expressed. > >The suggestion as it stands at present would alter the first object to >be altered as shown: > >[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. > >[Current version] > >1. To put into practice the fact that we are all parts of one universal >human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, >class, or color. > >[Suggested revision] > >TI members please comment - ALL members! >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >TIA, > >Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Jun 7 01:35:52 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 09:28:18 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199606070529.AA03183@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: = Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= > For: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Practical Theosophy L> states that giving money to a poor country hasn't helped yet. Yes, i've read articles about dreadful consequences of UNO activities in Africa, too. :-( L> I've been trying to give you some ideas as to how you could teach your L>It's very difficult to get the basic capital together Yes, rich get reacher & poor becomes more poorer. Some time ago i've read about an interesting hypothesis on this phenomenon. Are western theosophists acquainted with conception of egregores? I'm not sure because i haven't read in theosophical books about it. I assume a large thoughtform which is formed by a collective thinking of a some community, like poltitcal party, religion or even Theosophical Society :) Each member feeds an egregor by his thoughts and gets in return a protection. Egregore, of course, don't wanna lose his members because they feed him. And a man can participate in different egregores, but they should not be enemies to each another. All noted above is well-known information. But a new that i've read is the following: there's two big egregores - of rich people and of a poor ones. When a man is thinking about his poverty, he's feeding an egregore of poverty. The more is he thinking about it, the more valueable is he for egregore. So this egregore prevents him of getting reach because in that case an energy supply will be lost - it will come to egregore of wealth. Of course egregore of reaches prevents its members from being ruined, too. W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Jun 7 01:36:26 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 09:27:58 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199606070529.AA03182@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: - Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= Hello Liesel! >I belong to TS Adyar, but I also belong to the TS in Canada, which was >expelled by Adyar. Too? What for? Maybe, for studying "Hiawatha"? :) >I think Adyar, at this point, is much too strict with >their requirements for adnission of Russian theosophists. It would be not so bad if Adyar Society was only "one of many". But when we talk about theosophists with non-theosop- hists they associate it with Adyar headquarter. And if Adyar does something wrong it automatically extends to all theosop- hists in people's opinion. Because of that an acknowledgement by Adyar is so important. > The Theosophists > on the Internet are not only Adyar Theosophists. . > the rules of TI are a modernized version of the 3 objects. I think that these "three objects" are only important con- ditions. And most Internet theosophists share them, i hope. Some people say (in this list, too) that SD is wrong. But it cannot be a ground for expellation. HPB is famous theosop- hist, like Einstein is famous physicist. And physics in XX century is associated with name of Einstein. But if his theory of relativity will be refutated, it will not be end of phy- sics. Contrary, it will be a good progress for it! And studying other teachings cannot be cause of expellati- on, too. Because of second object of TS imposes to study dif- ferent teachings. I would better expell those who doesn't :) BTW, russian orthodox church expelled HPB (and all her follo- wers, too) two years ago. Since orthodox church doesn't accept reincarnation, HPB is now only under God's jurisdiction. So they placed themselves higher than God (or began believe to reincarnation, which is heresy, too). :) What I am all this writing for? HPB wrote in "Isis unvei- led" that there's more than 400 christian sects in USA. I af- raid that theosophists can "catch up & leave behind" as soviet enthusiasts of 30's said. Have theosophists ever trying to fix this situation? Here, using Internet, we have wider possibilities than before. Those who are Adyar-F.T.S. can organize letter campaign to Adyar he- adquarter in order to force Adyar officials begin the reinteg- ration process. I don't mean full reintegration but signing something like a "charter" on mutual acknowlegement between all theosophical & semi-theosophical lodges. Since theosop- hists are divided, their talks about "forming nucleus of brot- herhood" seem funny for other people, as well as other doctri- nes especially if latter were indeed a cause of separation. > about agni yoga. I've heard of it, but I don't know what it is. Is it the > theosophy of Mme. Roerich? It's very possible that Adyar doesn't accept Yes. It seems to me a little strange teaching. It's devotees say that it's more for heart than for mind. They don't accept Bailey & Leadbeater. There are 14 volumes: 1. Call (M. garden leaves, part I) 1924 2. Illumiination (M. g. l. part II) 1925 3. Community 1926 4. Signs of Agni-Yoga 1929 5. Unlimiteness (part I) 1930 6. Unlimiteness (part II) 1930 7. Hierarchy 1931 8. Heart 1932 9. Fireworld (part I) 1933 10. Fireworld (part II) 1934 11. Fireworld (part III) 1935 12. Aum 1936 13. Brotherhood 1937 14. Overterral (Brotherhood part II) 1938 I have all these in Russian, in ascii files. If someone of subdcribers knows russian he could obtain them from: www.topaz.kiev.ua ~/users/kirill But this server may close down soon. Some of these books are translated to English but I don't know which. W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 07:39:46 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 00:39:46 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607073946.006cf6f0@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Chuck) At 07:02 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: > Right. The normal result today is an argument. We see >this very clearly on theos-l. Please? I grew up in a Russo-Hungarian family. if there was something "wrong" with argument I'd never have lived to grow up! I was taught by every senior member of my family that there is something wrong with ICY discussions and COLD arguments, but that HOT arguments were made so by love and that they were the best way to learn. Alexis > any discussion is certain to end in arguments and shouts of anger. Comment: A discussion that ENDS in arguments and shouts of anger is a discussion with no use. But a discussion that starts calmly and then passes through a phase of anger and shouting and returns to calmness is useful and educational. If I'm wrong about this, then all of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean World is lost forever! > Alexis dolgorukii > > From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 08:07:19 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:07:19 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607080719.006b93c4@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? At 09:17 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >I >Major questions! I subscribed to alt-theosophy, but traffic so far is >minimal. Of course it's minimal, most people can't post to it. I can read it, and make private responses, but I cannot post to the list. The same appears to be true of Chuck as well. If it's true of us, and we're trying desperately to be able to post to the list, what must be happening with those who are only mildly curious? > >I agree that TI has a lot of work to do, but will the members get >together and do it? Ideally TI needs its own Web page with its own >links and its own Web identity - like "TI.org" or "TI.com". I asked >Rudy to put some other links on the present page, but it is on his own >Net provider, and so Rudy has control of it, and did not respond. I am beginning to fear that Rudy's through with us. Now I have checked with both Michael and John about a Web Page for T.I. but the understanding I've come away with is that individuals can start Web Pages for free but that anything resembling a Company or Organization must pay hefty fees. I will continue to investigate and also I'll ask Chuck if there's anyway to link the Alt.theosophy news group to TI. Just hang in there Dear Friend and something will happen in time. >For TI to really make an impact needs work done by its members, and some >sort of income or sponsorship. Sponsorship would be best in some ways, >so long as the sponsor(s) did not want to control what was put out. When most people give money, they tend to assume they've bought something. Sponsorship is too chancey! > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > alexis> From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 08:27:59 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:27:59 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607082759.006b4dec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA? At 09:41 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Gibber gibber gibber ... > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan, my dear friend, of course the internal politics of the TSA are meaningless to you, just as the internal politics of the Bristol lodge are meaningless to Doss. (They are only of interest to me because i care about you, and because they are symptomatic of theosophy as a whole) But what happened to Sy ginsburg, and the wholesale disenfranchisement of members is of significant import to most members of the TSA. because it's actions like John Algeo's that are killing the TSA. Now I am beginning to feel "good riddance" but many people like Sy Ginsburg and Ramadoss, and Rudy Don do care and care deeply, and that's why it's NOT GIBBER, GIBBER, GIBBER"! alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 08:36:49 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:36:49 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607083649.006d34c8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti At 09:41 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <9606051956.AA06775@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes >>I find it very strange to see so many people >>following and hanging on to every word uttered by a man who kept >>telling everybody not to follow him or to hang onto his words. > >Quite! I read a book containing talks of his in which he told the >audience not to write down what he was saying, as it was only relevant >at that particular moment in that particular place. This statement was, >of course, faithfully writeen down and recorded as "words of wisdom." > >I personally find him extremely boring. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: I've seen Krishnamurti a few times and you know what? I think he found himself boring. He was the Krishnamurti Foundation's only asset and he did what he had to to keep it going. Otherwise, he might actually have had to earn a living. I once saw the following exchange. Questioner: "Mr. Krishnamurti are you The World Teacher?" K: "No." questioner: "Then what are you?" K. "I'm a man who goes around the world teaching." It's clever, but is it the statement of a sincere person? alexis From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 08:50:43 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:50:43 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607085043.006c9be8@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck At 11:46 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >Daniel, >I could use 10 grand. I'll have to give this some serious thought. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >DO IT Chuck! He hasn't got the money anyway and with his psyche he'll lose so much face it'll be seppekku time! alexis From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 17:22:34 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:22:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607132232_130011720@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? The web page is a great idea. The ones that get hit and keep getting hit are the ones that have lots of links. So the best course would be to have short, concise statement about theosophy and TI on the home page (assuming we can ever decide what the TI objects are going to be) and then links to pages with longer documents which can range from public domain theo classics to essays from TI members that can all be downloaded for reading later. Chuck MTI, FTSA From euser@euronet.nl Fri Jun 7 19:04:23 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:04:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606071904.VAA24178@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Core Teachings Jerry S>Swabhava is itself a material concept, and it would be difficult to have a "too materialized version" of it. Martin comments: if we view swabhava as operating on all planes of existence, then their would be a spiritual swabhava too. I know that HPB and GdP have briefly mentioned the several hierarchies of 'colour', having to do with humans and cosmos, a mysterious subject matter which was not exposed further, although GdP mentioned his intention to do so (in his esoteric teachings). So, I personally think that there's a lot more to it than appears at surface value. Jerry S> The way I see it, swabhava is an important principle along the Arc of Descent, but is an interferring obstacle along the Arc of Ascent. I can only wonder why G de P didn't think of that, except that he uses it to reinforce his idea about gaining self-consciousness at the end of this manvantara. While it is true that we gain self-consciousness, its also true that this is the resultant of every manvantara, and that the whole "divine breath" is a circle, not a spiral. Martin comments: if it is a circle, then what about progressive evolution, a key concept in theosophy? Jerry S>Swabhava guides the skandhas. It gives them a sense of direction, so that our skandhas gradually shape us (i.e., our lower selves) into self-consciousness. The problem with self-consciousness is that it separates us from everyone and everything else. The original dualistic split between subject and object, or Self and Not-Self, is the impetus that started our manvantara in the first place. So, I see self-consciousness as the hallmark of the first 3 1/2 Rounds. Self-consciousness is the pivotal point at the lowest end of the manvantaric spectrum of consciousness. The second half of a manvantara is involved with re-uniting Self and Not-Self again. MArtin comments: that's more or less how I see it. Jerry S>This exact sequence of events is also seen in miniature during our lifetime. We are born in a neonatal condition of samadhi, with no concept of Self or Not-Self. Then a sense of self develops, followed by definition, which results in a separate personality. Then we tread the spiritual Path, at the end of which, Self is once again united with Not-Self, and we once again enter samadhi. As an Adept, we become as a little child, as Jesus puts it, and thus the circle is completed. Martin comments> But most of us (all?) need several lifetimes to complete this circle. Every next life we get closer to this unity of Self with Not-Self (if we tread the spiritual path). So, don't we see a spiral here instead of a circle? Martin E member TI From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 7 19:43:23 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:43:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I just checked regarding the storage space and domain registration. The typical space allocated for users web page along with an account is 5MB. The handling fee to get a domain name registered is $25 plus the fee charged by Internet is $100, which a 2 year fee. It is also my understanding that when you set up links to other webs it is customary to get the owners or webmasters' permission for the link. Chuck's idea of setting up a large number of links is a wonderful idea and visitors do like it. From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Fri Jun 7 19:38:10 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:38:10 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606072140.AA05741@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? I was very glad to see this response to the Web idea. I think Chuck has pinned down the essential approach and am convinced that it would result in many happy visitors! I find this whole concept quite exciting. Lambs and Wolves, Unite! Bjorn At 01:25 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >The web page is a great idea. The ones that get hit and keep getting hit are >the ones that have lots of links. So the best course would be to have short, >concise statement about theosophy and TI on the home page (assuming we can >ever decide what the TI objects are going to be) and then links to pages with >longer documents which can range from public domain theo classics to essays >from TI members that can all be downloaded for reading later. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > > roxendal@alpinet.net From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri Jun 7 21:55:59 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:55:59 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9606072155.AA11508@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: TSA? Alan Bain writes: >If I understand Sy correctly, it may be that the laws of >Illinois (or even Federal law) could be in direct conflict with >the articles of association of the T.S. (Adyar) - which would >put the TSA in a similar situation to Canada ... if so, one of >them would have to change, or the TSA would have to quit being a >Section under Adyar rules ... There is a third choice, and one Adyar takes for the US--where nobody changes. The American and French Sections have the same conflict with their Federal laws as did the Canadian Section, and Adyar knows all about it. But they do nothing about it. So why are the French and American Sections treated differently from the Canadian Section? The French and American Sections are obedient and loyal. The Canadian Section was independent and asked questions. In other words, Federal conflicts with Adyar rules are enforced according to criteria that has nothing to do with Federal laws. Invoking laws is just a ruse so that they don't have to get into an argument with the Sections over the real reasons. The first time I became aware of this is when the issue of apartheid came up in the South African Section. This Federal policy was in obvious violation to the first object of the TS. Some suggested that the TS in South Africa should be disbanded rather than making a hypocrisy of Theosophy and of the first object by continuing to cooperate with this Federal law. In this case, Adyar decided to respect So. African law and look the other way. There is another reason why Adyar would be very reluctant to expel the American Section. With our 4,000+ members we are the Second largest section in the world (India is 1st with about 10,000 members and New Zealand third with about 1800.) The American Section has lots of very generous and wealthy members who donate generously towards the upkeep and maintenance of Adyar. Expelling the American Section would be like killing the goose in the hope of getting all of the eggs at once. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 23:19:41 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:19:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607191940_321596816@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: egregores Kay, This is the first time I've heard of egregores in that context. Usually, they are deliberately created entities which have been built up to the point where they can function independently of their creators. For most of the people on this list, thoughtforms would be the equivalent concept. Other than that, your comments are right on the money. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 23:20:37 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:20:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607192036_321597595@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Chuck) Alex, We have cultural differences at work here. Some years ago at the convention at Lake Geneva there was a group thingy on resolve conflicts in TS groups and the woman who was moderating it made a comment that went something like, "In our culture we don't show anger." I immediately broke out laughing and asked her what planet she was from, because being half Italian we yell all the time. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 23:20:39 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:20:39 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607192039_321597633@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? Alex and Alan, All Rudy has to do is put a link in his web page to alt.theosophy. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 23:20:43 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:20:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607192042_321597668@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TSA? Alan, I second Alex's comments. The TSA has done a lot for me over the years and I am distressed beyond words at the way it is going. The reason I stay out of the politics as much as possible is that I don't want to be locked into one side or the other as long as their is hope of keeping the organization together. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 23:20:50 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:20:50 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607192048_321597790@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBEs are NOTHING BUT hallucinations: To Chuck Alex, I'd love to, but the experiment is going have to have more control than just his word that the paper is on his mirror. And I'm still not sure of his honesty. Actually, I really dislike this sort of thing. Years ago I used to give public demonstrations of how my equipment could be used to find out these stupid details and I got so burned out on it that I don't know if I want to bother. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 7 23:20:47 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:20:47 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960607192046_321597751@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Krishnamurti Alex, But look at it this way. If Krishnamurti had not been around, then someone else would have had to use Horatio Costa for a footstool. I must confess I have never been able to figure out why anyone would pay any attention to K. But then, I am not a serious person. Chuck the Obnoxiously Enlightened MTI, FTSA From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri Jun 7 23:33:42 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606072333.QAA17628@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: A new breakthrough on alt.theosophy? Yesterday I wrote to Alta Vista (one of the seach engines on the WWW) and told them about the existence of alt.theosophy. I told them it would be nice if they could start indexing it. They wrote back late yesteday and said they'd do it. And today by doing a Alta Vista search on Usenet groups, I saw the latest 2 postings to alt.theosophy. I am going to now go back and see if I can post something on alt.theosophy from the indexing page of alta vista. Does this make sense? If you know what I'm talking about, try it for yourself and see if it works. Daniel From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 7 23:56:25 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:56:25 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960607185846.2677bea0@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Voting Tally Info - Update Hi Here is an update on the subject. Here follows a reply from John Algeo, National President and my response to it. I will update you all when I hear from him M K Ramadoss ==================================================================== [Mailed by USPS] John Algeo's Letter to MKR: -------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, May 29, 1996 Dear Mr. Ramadoss: I am acquainted with the Illinois statutes to which you refer, and we are happy to observe them. They do not, however, appear to require an organization to send information by fax to someone who wants it. In your communication by your favored media of fax and e-mail, you might keep in mind some words from HPB that turned up on my desk this morning: -------Excerpt from HPB - BCW 9:245------ Sincerely yours, John Algeo National President ----------------------------------------------- Comment by MK Ramadoss: I have not listed the full text of the excerpt from HPB. If anyone is interested in it, I can post it here or e-mail it. ======================================================= MKR's Reply to John Algeo: -------------------------------- FAX MESSAGE June 5, 1996 10:45 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America Wheaton IL Dear Brother: I have received your letter of May 29, 1996 mailed by you by USPS. I am very glad to note your statement "I am acquainted with the Illinois statutes to which you refer, and we are happy to observe them." The Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act provides the access to Books and Records of TSA by me or my agent for any purpose. In my last letter I had appointed you and William N Greer as my agents so that you and William N Greer as my agents can access the information details I am seeking and send them to me. Since, in your letter, you have not mentioned anything about this aspect, it appears that neither you nor William N Greer are willing to do it. If I am wrong on this please let me know. If you and/or William N Greer are not willing to act as my agent and send me the information, then the only option that is left for me is for me to fly down to Olcott personally or send my agent to do it. If this is to be done, it would be in the interests of everybody if we can come up with a mutually acceptable protocol or procedure so that full access to books and records (for the election tally and any other purpose) of TSA is provided to myself and/or my agent in compliance with the Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act. Developing such protocol/procedure will also help in any future requests that you may receive from other members of TSA. Your immediate attention in letting me know the procedure/protocol will be highly appreciated. Thanks for your quotes from HPB. As for my personal preference for e-mail and FAX, the reasons behind are simple and few. Firstly they are the most efficient, cost effective means of written communication and also save trees and other natural resources. As for e-mail, the incremental cost of sending e-mail is Zero. As I pay a fixed fee for unlimited Internet access (which is the current norm in Internet Access), I can send and receive unlimited e-mail messages at no additional cost. So every time I send a e-mail to any address anywhere in the world, I avoid the cost of paper copy, mailing and postage of atleast 32 cents each. Messages sent abroad result in more significant savings in postage. As for FAX also, the differential savings in cost is at least 32 cents postage. I watch my expenses on my correspondence as all the expenditures come out of my personal funds and I want the funds I have to be put to use with utmost efficiency and effectiveness. In this connection it would like to mention that that I had occassions to FAX messages to Adyar (which has FAX access) and I have had an occassion to receive a FAX response from Bro. Radha Burnier, our International President. I hope you can provide me with a (1) a quick response and (2) by FAX. With regards and fraternal greetings, Fraternally, M K Ramadoss ============================================================ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri Jun 7 23:55:59 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:55:59 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606072355.QAA27430@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: More on alta vista and alt.theosophy: CHUCK Okay, it worked. I searched for alt.theosophy using the alta vista search engine for Usenet groups. I found 2 postings and replied (in alta vista) to one of these postings. I then left netscape and the WWW and went to my trumpet program and called up alt.theosophy through my local server Starnet. There was my reply! So Chuck, I'm now functioning in alt.theosophy through my local server and can also contact alt.theosophy through alta vista! Someone else should try access through Alta Vista. Daniel From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Jun 8 06:50:28 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:50:28 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608065028.00697280@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosophy is a Coined Term Richard Ihle: [writing to Jerry S] >Capitalized ~Theosophy~ has already been defined by John >Algeo, Eldon, and others as basically those ideas found >in the writings of HPB (and perhaps a few other associated >materials). I'd make a few subtle distinctions here. I wouldn't put it as "those ideas found in the writings of HPB", but rather say that it is a body of ideas consistent with what HPB wrote. HPB may have made mistakes at times, and was limited by the lack of terminology and words to use in English to describe the grand truths. But HPB was, I think, a *known source* of certain materials, not the *originator* of the materials. This would be like saying that ideas about calculus would be consistent with the writings on calculus by a known professor of mathematics. That is different than saying that calculus is basically the ideas found in the writings of a particular mathematical teacher. >John even seems to want to make the ~Theosophical~ in >~The Theosophical Society~ officially stand for just this >definition; Eldon has never actually gone that far, but >one suspects that this development would not disappoint him. I would see a use for a diversity of specializations among theosophical organizations, including one or a few with a -- gasp! -- actual interest in preserving and passing on the source teachings of Theosophy. >I have more or less given up trying to persuade people >that capitalized ~Theosophy~ should be restricted to two >meanings: 1) the organization/movement, and 2) the ineffable >universal--Theo-Sophia. But there are more things in life that the word could refer to than we can cover by making "Theosophy" into two words: Theosophy and theosophy. Yet a third use of the term would be for the body of Mystery Teachings that has passed down from generation to generation of Adepts, fragments of which are in the theosophical literature. This is not the finger pointing at the Moon, not writings about the ineffable, but rather deals with several levels of ordinary knowledge about life, levels that match the deeper understanding of the Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas. >The "convenient habit" of simply referring to the ideas >in THE SECRET DOCTRINE etc. as "Theosophy" seems just too >well-established. There's nothing wrong here. It's just that the word "Theosophy" is being used in a *third* sense, different than the two that you prefer. When someone might insist that their one or more definitions of "Theosophy" are the only ones, they go beyond promoting their personal worldview, and start implicitly denying differing worldviews. >If I cannot get someone whom I respect as highly as you to >consider the crystallizing implications of this undoubtedly >E.S.--approved usage, I know I am defeated. You're not defeated, in talking to Jerry S. or any of us. Why do you need a flavor of the word "Theosophy" to label the appreciation of the ineffable? It seems that by wanting to use the capital-T Theosophy to refer to that, to the in-finite, rather than to the finite and attainable Mystery Teachings, that you are simply wanting to point out our lack of interest in this equally important object of contemplation? We can study psycho-genesis, "theosophy", and we can study the Mysteries, "Theosophy", and still have this third object of study or reflection, the ineffable, "That", Tat, the ultimate mystery about which the first fundamental proposition of "The Secret Doctrine" refers. >However, other than for the purpose of possibly formally >announcing that you are "signing on" with the majority in >regard to the capital ~T~, I guess I do not understand the >intent of your post. I think that Jerry S. is indicating that there is something to the theosophical ideas themselves. Perhaps he recognizes that there are definite doctrines to be written about and presented to the new student, and that there's more to Theosophy than a seeker's club where people compare opinions but have nothing to come together to study apart from playing "show and tell". >Is it to suggest an alternative to the party line or >something? In other words, do you possibly want to >establish a ~fourth~ (!) definition for capitalized >~Theosophy~ to mean subject matter related to the topics >you listed, irrespective of whether or not a person's >understandings about their content/workings agree with HPB >or not? Here we've jumped from two to four definitions of Theosophy. Somewhere I've missed your third definition, unless it's the one that I've been talking about. We're facing with Theosophy the same situation as Col. Olcott faced in Sri Lanka when he was wanting to reform Buddhism. There were a number of different sects with contrary beliefs. He had the challenge to write a treatise on Buddhism that all the different groups would agree to. It was astonishing that he actually succeeded, and he became a national hero. Our task is more difficult since there is far more reliance upon personal opinion among Theosophists, so that the diversity of conflicting ideas tends to bury the key ideas in a cloud of smoke. One says the sky is blue, the next says it's pink, the third says it's dark yellow. They're all good T.S. members, and who's to say which is right? We might be able to find a HPB passage that also says the sky is blue, but maybe not. What are we to do? >If this is the case--oh, what the hell, I'll go along >with you: maybe if we can get about a thousand >definitions for capitalized ~Theosophy~ people will >sooner or later throw them all out and take another look >at the broad definition (basically stolen from multiple >dictionaries) I offered for uncapitalized ~theosophy~: >"Knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally >derives from transcendental, mystical, or intuitive >insight or higher perception." Our knowledge of how to walk is both conceptual and comes from personal experience. As does our knowledge of gravity, how to boil water, and how to read a book. When we actually know about something in the world, about how it works and how it related to our lives, we come to truth, and that truth is one and not many. It's just in the world of fantasy where the imagination runs wild and a dozen people come up with two dozen opinions about life. There are flavors of Theosophy relating to both of these. There's a version that is based upon wishful thinking and subjective experiences that tend to confirm what one already believes. (This can happen both for book learning and for subjective psychic perceptions.) And there's a version that is based upon the real way that the world works. This second version, when it goes beyond the everyday experience of our personal lives, is the Mysteries, and fragments of it, I think, are to be found buried in the writings of HPB (and others). >(By the way, I was interested that one of Eldon's posts >on alt.theosophy--it has disappeared now for some >reason--chose to define small ~t~ ~theosophy~ in an >ultra-vague, short-shrift way as something like "an >individual's spiritual path" rather than use any variant >of the more substantial-sounding foregoing--which I >know he has seen several times. I would personally just use the one version: Theosophy. This is because the personal quest, that some define under "theosophy", is inseparable from the Mysteries, "Theosophy", and I'd leave "theosophy" to refer the use of the term prior to its adoption by HPB with the formation of the Theosophical Society. >It seems that "newbies" will get many definitions of >both T/theosophies depending upon the purposes and >generosity-toward-opponents of those who are there to >help them. . . .) The simplistic and most plain, direct, and unassuming approach to telling someone about Theosophy is to describe the basic theosophical concepts and give references to good textbooks. One can also talk about personal experiences and play guru, psychologist, and social worker to the people, but that may not be what they want, and it may be presumptuous to do it without their first indicating an interest. >Anyway, Jerry, are you now numbered with those who >feel there exists somewhere a properly catholic answer >to the question "What do theosophists believe (!) in?" You'd have to first mention to him which "Theosophy" you were talking about before he could answer you. From one version, the answer might be: it's possible to give such a "catholic" answer, limited of course by one's individual understanding. Someone could give the proper mathematical answer to what mathematicians think about trigonometry. That person might not be able to give a proper answer to the best way to contemplate the ineffable. The answer with regard to Theosophy would depend on *which* Theosophy that you're talking about ... -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 7 23:32:02 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:32:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TSA? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960607082759.006b4dec@mail.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960607082759.006b4dec@mail.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >> >>Gibber gibber gibber ... >> Correction: Gibber gibber gibber :-) The cause of the gibbering is the mind of Bain trying to think of 18 things at once and only managing 71. It is not, repeat, not, a serious comment upon the trials and tribulations of members of the TSA. Oh dear... 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 Jun 8 01:02:33 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 02:02:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: T.S. HISTORY - THE CWL AFFAIR, 1906-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 Some long awaited and very scarce material concerning the above chapter of T.S. history has just become available in England. Over the next week or two I shall be scanning an uploading some of the more important material to theos-roots. In view of the potentially controversial, and to some, offensive nature of these works, I am advising subscribers to theos-l in advance, so that anyone who wishes to unsubscribe to theos- roots can have the opportunity to do so, so that they will not receive postings they would prefer not to read. Some might ask, "Why bring up the past? Surely it is all dead and best forgotten?" To this I would reply, "Because the past shapes the future, and often, by virtue of its distance from the present, helps us to avoid making mistakes we might otherwise make." In recent times, as has been said here from time to time, entire Lodges and Sections have, for one reason or another, left the International (Adyar) Society. In 1909, the British Section alone lost 206 members and nine lodges as a direct consequence of the CWL controversy. It also lost some important people in the history of the theosophical movement, among whom were HPB's Secretary, G.R.S.Mead, A.P.Sinnet (recipient of the original Mahatma Letters), William Kingsland, J.M.Watkins (of Bookshop fame), and F. Bligh Bond (whose psychic research led to important discoveries at Glastonbury, Somerset). I shall allow at least 24 hours before posting any material to theos- roots. With familial best wishes, Dr. A.M.Bain --------- 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 Jun 8 10:08:44 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 03:08:44 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608100844.006ba1d0@mail.deltanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Owls and Vultures (to Jerry S) Jerry S: >The reading and studying is all part of the Path, but it, >by itself, is not enough. Sooner or later, the dog >chasing its tail (and this too is a phase that must be >gone through) will realize what it is doing. Reading and studying *by itself* will eventually have to end, as you say. But it does not stop, it's just that there are other changes going on in a student, other inner processes that are engaged. As a general rule, I'd expect the refinement and development of the mind to continue along both intellectual and mystical lines. There may, for some individuals, be a period of barrenness of mind, where such activities cease, but these periods would eventually come to an end. >it is true that one must experience real love in order to >understand it, and experience real compassion before the >teachings really start making sense. Yes. Experience of the higher qualities or virtues like compassion is necessary, and simply having ideas about the qualities does not give one understanding. And an inner awakening along various lines is important for the true significance of the teachings to be appreciated. >Without actually being compassionate on a daily basis, >the teaching of the bodhisattva is only an intellectual >exercise. As is true of any of the higher qualities. And there are two levels to living the qualities. First is a deep, heart-felt inner experience, something that is real, genuine, life-gripping in nature. Second are actions on our part to give concrete expression to these qualities in outer life. Without the concrete expressions, we're making reservations for a *very long* devachan. >And the whole point to jnana yoga is to reach the >crisis point or catharsis where the realization dawns >that the human mind seeking after truth is like a dog >chasing after its own tail. I'd agree that there's eventually a realization that we have to try other approaches to find truth. The ordinary process of thinking about things is not enough. This doesn't mean, though, that the thinking process isn't useful in understanding and explaining the insights that may come in a flash. The mind is still useful in the process of finding truth. It's just that we don't mistake the mental words for the truth itself. Instead, the mind is used to give intermediate expression to truth, before we communicate it to others in our words and deeds. >Only then will consciousness be able to bypass the mind >itself (manas) and look within to the higher planes >(atma-buddhi). The principles are all inter correlated. Atman and Buddhi may unscroll, in serial order, as we come into existence or depart existence, but while in life, the actions on any principle affect all of the others directly. The mind does not stand, I think, in the way of accessing Atman or Buddhi. We don't "bypass" the mind, but rather learn to end some of its maya creating, reality-slaying activities. >>If I were making an analogy, I'd make it the owls >>versus the vultures. >No problem. The ancient Egyptians used the vulture >as the primary symbol for motherhood and thought they >were self-created. The vulture symbolizes self-expression, >which is exactly what I feel is the purpose of life. >So, while owls read and study over creativity, the >vultures are busy doing it. Self-expression is important. But not of "self" as the personality, the petty bundle of opinions, personal wants and needs. Rather, an expression in one's own individual way of transcendental qualities of the spirit, qualities of higher planes, noble virtues, grand ideals that would otherwise remain inexpressible. >(I can twist analogies around too ) True. It's ok to do when having fun. It's another thing when there's an element of egotism or spite. >> Early this century, for example, there was a >>scientific theory that waves like light needed a substance to >>propagate through space. This was called "ether". Leadbeater >>picked up on this theory and his writings embraced it. >You, like everyone else, keep picking on CWL. I didn't call him anything. It's easy to bring him up as an example of mistaken links to science that has been outmoded, since his materials are so old. >Yes, there is no "ether" in the sense in which it was >originally described. But today's science now knows for >certain that there is no such thing as empty space or a >vacuum. Space is filled with "plasma" or "virtual particles" >or "fields" and so on. At normal temperatures, I'm not sure if space (of this plane) is completely filled with particles. And when you consider something as a wave rather than as a particle, it may be hard to pinpoint a position for it, although one way of thinking about a wave, like light coming from a star, is the surface of a sphere that grows forever in size, approaching infinity. At near-absolute-zero temperature, space does become filled with particles. This is with the Bose-Einstein condensation, where the speed of the particles is nearly perfectly known (a speed of zero due to the cold) and the location of the particles becomes so fuzzy that they overlap their neighbors. I recall reading that this was experimentally verified last summer. >I think CWL intuitively knew that space couldn't be >"empty" and picked up on the latest scientific evidence >at the time. Even though there is no ether, CWL was >right about no vacuum. But space is not a "place" nor a "container" as we may think of it in the west. It is more like being-ness itself. External things are created, moment-by-moment, by the "space" behind them. >I wonder what he (and HPB for that matter) would have come >up with, if he had known about Bell's Interconnectedness >Theory let alone quantum theory? With each advance in knowledge, we can benefit from the richness of metaphor and analogy provided us. Pure space, though, is still intangible. We like to think of things like "the curvature of space near a black hole", but there is simply no "thing" that we can call space. What we really observe about a black hole in space is the bending of light, etc., due to gravitation, and we could graph it the effects as though light still moved in a straight line but space itself was curving. But this is simply a graph, a metaphor for the behavior of light, and has not really dealt with space per se. >>Another problem with Theosophy failing to take on and find wider >>value with people is that there seems to be widespread rejection >>of the spiritual-intellectual approach. It is possible with this >>approach to have *real* experiences too. >I think that I, and the other wolves/vultures would >really enjoy hearing some examples of these experiences. >This would probably help bridge the gap that now seems >to exist between us. It would be possible to write about them at times, but sometimes it deals with intangibles and may seem somewhat mystical, or may be useless to talk about, being subject to misinterpretation and false claims by others. Sometimes it may deal with long term changes in the nature of the self, and not immediately apparent to the experiencer, because not being a specific experience, and because not have one's old self side-by-side the new one, for purposes of comparison. As for myself, I feel more prepared to discuss the approach in general terms, talking about what it is and offering it as useful ideas to consider. >I do not reject the spiritual-intellectual approach, >and I have already told about my own jnana-yoga experiences >and how James Long helped me to stop and smell the roses. >So I am saying that jnana-yoga is a real valid path, based >on my own experience. But jnana-yoga, and the spiritual- >intellectual path are not intended to keep us reading and >studying for lifetimes, but only up to the moment of >catharsis or what is today called a "spiritual emergency" >(the DSM-IV acknowledges this, at long last, and largely >due to Ken Wilber and others). Thus I see it as a step >along the Path, and have never tried to denigrate it. I am, >rather, simply trying to encourage those on it to move along. Study and jnana-yoga is a step along the way, if it's the primary focus of someone's development, until he ripens and readies himself for something more. And I'd agree that there sometimes come bifurcation points in life where one's old order ends and one is subject to new cycles ... But the flowering of the mind continues, and is never put aside. It just becomes a tool for expression yet higher experiences. And when I talk about the spiritual-intellectual approach, I'm talking about these higher experiences, this *something* that comes after making breakthroughs and moving beyond a brain-mind reading of the literal writings of Theosophy. >> Hence, we hear >>lots of talk of some psychic vision or out-of-the-body experience >>as "real experience" and inner experiences of the other kind as >>the "fantasy" of people with mere book learning and "no real >>experience". Or we hear that the fruits of meditation are "mere >>imagination" whereas psychical sight is actual experience, and not >>equally-subjective and possibly hallucination, the visual >>equivalent to imagination! >Well, I can only speak for myself, Eldon. I have never >tried to deliberately induce a psychic experience, but I will >admit that sometimes they come upon me unaware. Life is full of experiences, and we deal with them as they come. The important distinction that I'd make, though, is between experiences, where we see, hear, touch, smell, and interact with others (on this on another plane), and our inner states and flowering, a richness of inner wealth that we brings to the experiences. One person could gaze upon a scene with dull eyes, deadened heart, and a sluggish, dimly-lit mind. Another would gaze upon the same scene with penetrating eyes, burning heart, and brilliant mind! We have two people with the same "experience", but entirely different inner states. It's the inner states, I'd say, that the true difference is to be found. >My own feeling, as you know, is that all experience >is valid, and all experience tends to support and validate our >worldview. Any experience that can't be assimilated, must >either be ignored--a psychic disaster--or we have to adapt >our worldview--not an easy or pleasant experience either. >When Bjorn says that he has met Jesus, I believe him, albeit >I doubt that it was the same biblical personage that began >Christianity. This is why the Mysteries exist. They deal with wisdom that does beyond our experience in the world. We aren't in a position to assimilate much of them. To understand the deep occult truths, we have to step aside from our external conditioning, and look at things *differently*. This can be done *inside*; we don't have to externally become "wolves" and outcasts in society. >And I have never denigrated meditation, for which >I not only have high regard, but I consider it mandatory. >I also take Jung's position that there is no such thing as >"mere" imagination. Imagination is the mechanism that >makes all magical experiences (and all life is magical) >possible. Yes, meditation is important. And so is imagination. But I'd say "mere imagination" when it is entirely subjective, disconnected from the external world and the way that actual life works, like in low-grade daydreaming. Or it would be "mere imagination" when it is used to simply reinforce prejudices and preconceptions, and as a barrier to realizing truth, rather than as a tool to refashion oneself to better realize truth. >> Were it not for this *denial* >>of reality to non-psychic inner development, I think we'd have far >>less disagreements on theos-l. >Here you are obviously speaking from your own >perspective. I would say that the other side of the coin is also >true--if it were not for this *denial* of all psychic reality, I think >we'd have far less disagreements on theos-l. Yes, less denial brings more agreement. But I've never denied psychic reality, just, in many cases, it's objectivity. I'd consider it as subjective in the same sense as dreams are, with experiences arising out of one's own elementals, out of the contents of one's own psyche, and not as a direct line to truth nor proof that one has "real experience" and is worthy of guru status. >I have never complained about the spiritual-intellectual >approach, and am a living example of how jnana-yoga can actually >work (at least to some extent, I hope). But when you tell people >to ignore psychism when it comes to them, I think that this is >wrong, albeit it is exactly G de P's own methodology. I simply >don't agree with G de P on this one. The story of Gopi Krishna >is an excellent example of what can happen to someone who >meditates and rouses Kundalini when unprepared for it. We >need to help people become prepared, to avoid this kind of >thing. Purucker's statements regarding down playing the psychic were directed to esoteric students, to people serious about treading the path, and with some sign that they were actually serious about doing it. They would not apply to "joe sixpack". Again, advice on spiritual matters is personal, and cannot be given in a way that applies to everyone. >I suspect that less messages on the dangers of psychism >(which I don't deny per se, but feel are overrated), and >more on its mechanics and control, would also help end the >conflict on theos-l. The only *serious* danger that I'd always tend to warn people against would be any attempt to do things with kundalini. As to the rest, the worst that someone can do is to become deluded, living in a self-created dream and weaving a world of fantasy about themselves. This is harmless, until they pass off this smoke in place of the fire of the spirit. (Note that I'm speaking of what I see as the danger of the psychical, and not stating that every theos-l psychic is that way. I'd expect the same when someone is warning others of the dangers of the intellect. Simply being involved with the mind, I wouldn't feel slighted, like I was automatically included in the warning.) >But we will never come together in any meaningful >way if we can't openly discuss any and all subjects. So, even >at the risk of flames, please don't feel that you can't write about >psychism on theos-l. Yes, your response is apt to be some >opposing viewpoints. But hey, that's what its all about. Differing views can be discussed; that's fine. It only gets bad when things get nasty, and the personal attacks start flying. It's possible to ignore them, like water off a duck's back, for a time. But sustained negativity, over an extended period of time, is like any other type of abuse. Eventually a battered partner needs to get out of a negative relationship. I suspect that some subscribers have caught on to this quicker than most, and have quickly departed with few scars to show for the experience. This is one of the reasons that I think we've had such a high turnover in subscribers ... -- Eldon From zen@freenet.hamilton.on.ca Sat Jun 8 03:20:48 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:20:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Hanna Subject: Unsu*scribe In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Somebody please tell me how to unsu*scribe from this list? I've tried twice and nothing seems to happen. zen@freenet.hamilton.on.ca http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ad255/Profile.html http://www2.apple.com/whymac/ From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Jun 7 14:38:52 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 10:38:52 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606071544.LAA24013@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: ULT Dear Eva, I'm forwarding your message to Rich Taylor. He's ULT, and very knowledgeable. He's not reading this mailing list just now. Richtay@aol.com Best wishes, Liesel >It would be nice if anyone who reads this and who is particularly interested >in studying the writings of H.P.B. and W.Q.J, could send me a few lines on >the above email address. >I am a member of the U.L.T. Malmoe, Sweden. > > > From ericesc@ns.sinfo.net Fri Jun 7 17:01:44 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:01:44 -0400 From: Eric Escalante Message-Id: <199606071701.NAA07109@ns.sinfo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: ULT Hello, I am starting to read theosophy and i'm really interested in getting buying "The Secret Doctrine" (particulary en spanish). Eric A. Escalante. From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 7 21:14:22 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:14:22 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960607211422.006be104@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: ULT At 01:49 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hello, I am starting to read theosophy and i'm really interested in getting >buying "The Secret Doctrine" (particulary en spanish). > >Eric A. Escalante. > > >Eric: Get in touch with Rudolfo Don (E-Mail address: rdon@garlic.com) Tell him Alexis sent you. He's Cubano and can help you better than anyone I know. alexis From blafoun@azstarnet.com Fri Jun 7 23:33:42 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199606072333.QAA17628@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: A new breakthrough on alt.theosophy? Yesterday I wrote to Alta Vista (one of the seach engines on the WWW) and told them about the existence of alt.theosophy. I told them it would be nice if they could start indexing it. They wrote back late yesteday and said they'd do it. And today by doing a Alta Vista search on Usenet groups, I saw the latest 2 postings to alt.theosophy. I am going to now go back and see if I can post something on alt.theosophy from the indexing page of alta vista. Does this make sense? If you know what I'm talking about, try it for yourself and see if it works. Daniel From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 7 18:32:10 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:32:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: ULT (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Eric: There is a maillist called theos-span. I am forwarding your message to theos-span as you someone there may also help you. ..Ramadoss > Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:48:59 -0400 > From: Eric Escalante > Subject: Re: ULT Hello, I am starting to read theosophy and i'm really interested in getting buying "The Secret Doctrine" (particulary en spanish). Eric A. Escalante. From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 7 23:56:25 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:56:25 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960607185846.2677bea0@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Voting Tally Info - Update Hi Here is an update on the subject. Here follows a reply from John Algeo, National President and my response to it. I will update you all when I hear from him M K Ramadoss ==================================================================== [Mailed by USPS] John Algeo's Letter to MKR: -------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, May 29, 1996 Dear Mr. Ramadoss: I am acquainted with the Illinois statutes to which you refer, and we are happy to observe them. They do not, however, appear to require an organization to send information by fax to someone who wants it. In your communication by your favored media of fax and e-mail, you might keep in mind some words from HPB that turned up on my desk this morning: -------Excerpt from HPB - BCW 9:245------ Sincerely yours, John Algeo National President ----------------------------------------------- Comment by MK Ramadoss: I have not listed the full text of the excerpt from HPB. If anyone is interested in it, I can post it here or e-mail it. ======================================================= MKR's Reply to John Algeo: -------------------------------- FAX MESSAGE June 5, 1996 10:45 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America Wheaton IL Dear Brother: I have received your letter of May 29, 1996 mailed by you by USPS. I am very glad to note your statement "I am acquainted with the Illinois statutes to which you refer, and we are happy to observe them." The Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act provides the access to Books and Records of TSA by me or my agent for any purpose. In my last letter I had appointed you and William N Greer as my agents so that you and William N Greer as my agents can access the information details I am seeking and send them to me. Since, in your letter, you have not mentioned anything about this aspect, it appears that neither you nor William N Greer are willing to do it. If I am wrong on this please let me know. If you and/or William N Greer are not willing to act as my agent and send me the information, then the only option that is left for me is for me to fly down to Olcott personally or send my agent to do it. If this is to be done, it would be in the interests of everybody if we can come up with a mutually acceptable protocol or procedure so that full access to books and records (for the election tally and any other purpose) of TSA is provided to myself and/or my agent in compliance with the Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act. Developing such protocol/procedure will also help in any future requests that you may receive from other members of TSA. Your immediate attention in letting me know the procedure/protocol will be highly appreciated. Thanks for your quotes from HPB. As for my personal preference for e-mail and FAX, the reasons behind are simple and few. Firstly they are the most efficient, cost effective means of written communication and also save trees and other natural resources. As for e-mail, the incremental cost of sending e-mail is Zero. As I pay a fixed fee for unlimited Internet access (which is the current norm in Internet Access), I can send and receive unlimited e-mail messages at no additional cost. So every time I send a e-mail to any address anywhere in the world, I avoid the cost of paper copy, mailing and postage of atleast 32 cents each. Messages sent abroad result in more significant savings in postage. As for FAX also, the differential savings in cost is at least 32 cents postage. I watch my expenses on my correspondence as all the expenditures come out of my personal funds and I want the funds I have to be put to use with utmost efficiency and effectiveness. In this connection it would like to mention that that I had occassions to FAX messages to Adyar (which has FAX access) and I have had an occassion to receive a FAX response from Bro. Radha Burnier, our International President. I hope you can provide me with a (1) a quick response and (2) by FAX. With regards and fraternal greetings, Fraternally, M K Ramadoss ============================================================ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:32:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: ULT (fwd) Message-ID: Eric: There is a maillist called theos-span. I am forwarding your message to theos-span as you someone there may also help you. ..Ramadoss > Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:48:59 -0400 > From: Eric Escalante > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: ULT Hello, I am starting to read theosophy and i'm really interested in getting buying "The Secret Doctrine" (particulary en spanish). Eric A. Escalante. From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 07:21:45 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 00:21:45 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608072145.006b5e24@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI first object At 11:12 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message , Alan > writes >> >>It has been proposed that the TI first object could be better expressed. >> >>The suggestion as it stands at present would alter the first object to >>be altered as shown: >> >>[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. >> >>[Current version] >> >>1. To put into practice the fact that we are all parts of one universal >>human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, >>class, or color. >> >>[Suggested revision] >> >>TI members please comment - ALL members! >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>TIA, >> >>Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > > I will support the suggested revision in preference to the current version but I too feel that "Universal" is a bit pretentious as "humanity", or Homo-Sapiens, is a planetary phenomenon, limited to this planet. Our work and our goal is to inculcate all possible amity within the human family. The oneness of the unified energy field which is the cosmos is an on-going reality, and needs no input from homo--saps. alexis dolgorukii T.I. From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Jun 8 18:28:58 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 14:28:58 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199606081934.PAA18478@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Russian TS >To: liesel@dreamscape.com >Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 22:05:32 +0300 >From: Kay Ziatz >Reply-To: Kay Ziatz >Subject: Russian TS > > >L> I've done my duty. >L> me feel terrible, and accomplishes absolutely nothing. > Maybe it isn't yr. dharma to participate in discussions - i don't know. >But i think that isn't wise to cutoff yourself from a channel which you >can work through. > Do you planning to join alt.theosophy? > >L> though the Canadian President tried to find out. > Do you know personally Canadian President? Maybe Adyar autorities >didn't like his personal qualities? > >L> I don't think anyone can convince Radha Burnier of anything. > But what about reelection? As far as I know, TS leaders have been >never reelected and remained until death, like general secretaries >of Communist Party of USSR. But even communists once displaced >N. Hruschov in 1964 :) > >L> Petitioning her is like knnocking your head against a brick wall. > Study karate :) > Have soneone tried "organized petitioning"? Maybe previous peti- >tions wasn't effective because they were sent by divided people. >But now we have a benefit of Internet, which Adyar doesn't. I mean >that each who will occasionally visit Adyar should know which let- >ters & from whom were sent. Of cource, it depends on number of peo- >ple that think like me & you and belong to TS Adyar. > I've read this year a book by Concordia Antarova "Two lives" >which some people call "scandalous". It was written during 2nd >world war and was not for publishing but is published only now. >It's a fiction book about Masters and their work, but really (?) >it describes an "alchemical" process in human soul. In most as- >pects it matches Baileys books. It contains some advices, one of >them may be useful in your work. When you're talking with a man, >don't talk to him, but to higher self which enfolded in him. Of >course, it works only if your intentions are spiritual. Maybe >this method will help you when uniting theosophists. But i don't >know, does it work via e-mail ;) > >L> Wheaton just changed the by laws to conform with what Radha wanted. > I not mean integration in one structure that is maybe impossible >by reasons which only Radha knows, but only an acknowledgement as >theosophical organizations, i.e. at least stopping such a letters >as one by Kurt Berg which i've quoted. > >L> He's been putting HPB classics into our files. >We have russian translation of HPB's "Key to Theosophy" and approx. >2 volumes of little articles in ASCII files, as well as AB's "Ancient >Wisdom" and CWL's "Astral plane", "Mental plane" & "Monad". >I don't know anything about (c) of theosophical books. We in >Russia don't conform any (c) lows so we place to ftp sites all >books and software that available. But i afraid that it's maybe >impossible in the west - i've seen fragments of "key to theosophy" >on theosophicall www server, but never a full text - maybe it's >by (c) reasons (?) > >L> How about Daniel Entin? He could keep them in the Roerich Museum > I know nothiing about him. > > Konstantin. > > > From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 8 04:56:00 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:56:00 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960607235821.303f0f30@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Unsu*scribe At 11:40 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Somebody please tell me how to unsu*scribe from this list? I've tried >twice and nothing seems to happen. > >zen@freenet.hamilton.on.ca > http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ad255/Profile.html > http://www2.apple.com/whymac/ > > Please send a message to; listserv@vnet.net and with nothing in subject have one single line message as follows: unsubscribe theos-l that's all to it. Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 06:41:46 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:41:46 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608064146.006b0d84@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: TSA? At 05:57 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >There is a third choice, and one Adyar takes for the US--where >nobody changes. The American and French Sections have the same >conflict with their Federal laws as did the Canadian Section, and >Adyar knows all about it. But they do nothing about it. So why >are the French and American Sections treated differently from the >Canadian Section? The French and American Sections are obedient >and loyal. The Canadian Section was independent and asked >questions. In other words, Federal conflicts with Adyar rules >are enforced according to criteria that has nothing to do with >Federal laws. Invoking laws is just a ruse so that they don't >have to get into an argument with the Sections over the real >reasons. The first time I became aware of this is when the issue >of apartheid came up in the South African Section. This Federal >policy was in obvious violation to the first object of the TS. >Some suggested that the TS in South Africa should be disbanded >rather than making a hypocrisy of Theosophy and of the first >object by continuing to cooperate with this Federal law. In this >case, Adyar decided to respect So. African law and look the other >way. The least that can be said about this action vis a vis South Africa is that it demonstrates an almost perfect lack of integrity of any kind. Almost the entire world ostracized South Africa and the T.S. (Adyar) didn't...how interesting! Add that to other information I'm developing and a very ugly picture imerges. alexis > >There is another reason why Adyar would be very reluctant to >expel the American Section. With our 4,000+ members we are the >Second largest section in the world (India is 1st with about >10,000 members and New Zealand third with about 1800.) The >American Section has lots of very generous and wealthy members >who donate generously towards the upkeep and maintenance of >Adyar. Expelling the American Section would be like killing the >goose in the hope of getting all of the eggs at once. > >JHE >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 06:53:38 1996 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:53:38 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608065338.006b99c4@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: egregores At 07:19 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Kay, >This is the first time I've heard of egregores in that context. Usually, >they are deliberately created entities which have been built up to the point >where they can function independently of their creators. For most of the >people on this list, thoughtforms would be the equivalent concept. >Other than that, your comments are right on the money. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: Would an "egregore" then not equate to a "Golem"? alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 07:02:44 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 00:02:44 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608070244.006b0974@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Chuck) At 07:23 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >We have cultural differences at work here. Some years ago at the convention >at Lake Geneva there was a group thingy on resolve conflicts in TS groups and >the woman who was moderating it made a comment that went something like, "In >our culture we don't show anger." >I immediately broke out laughing and asked her what planet she was from, >because being half Italian we yell all the time. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: That, I think is the basic problem with the TSA and the TS Adyar. It has subsumed totally Victorian Anglo-Saxon Middle and Upper-middle-class pretenses. Because those are the ONLY people who pride themselves on never showing anger or any other emotion. It's a phenomenon developed within people who came back from India and other Colonies newly rich off their purloined wealth and continued to behave in the pretentious manner in which they believed they had "awed the natives". What you had was a lot of English White Trash who went out to socially climb in the colonies. They had no idea how old money and aristocracy behave so they "lived out their fantasies" and then, when they got rich off graft and what they stole from the people over whom they ruled, they went home, built a vulgar mansion, and imposed those fantasies on the Mother Country and America who at that period took all it's social clues from the English and was also overwhelmed with rich white trash. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 07:06:25 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 00:06:25 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608070625.006adaa8@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? At 07:24 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex and Alan, >All Rudy has to do is put a link in his web page to alt.theosophy. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Chuck: The question is: Is Rudy still speaking to us? Let John do some research and we'll see what, if anything, can be done without much if any expenditure. I'm going to ask Mike (who's back in Guernsey), to contact Alan and see if he can help him, Mike has a web page of his own so he really knows the drill. alexis From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 8 12:19:01 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:19:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606081219.OAA02777@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot of work to do? Alan>Major questions! I subscribed to alt-theosophy, but traffic so far is minimal. Alan: true, but we haven't really started there yet because of the technical problems some of us have in posting to that newsgroup. BTW, I noticed Daniel's posting there made through the Altavista web-to-usenet interface. It might be possible that this interface is consistently available now, I'll check that for the next couple of weeks. Anyway, I've registered news:alt.theosophy with a couple of searchengines and suspect that the Altavista interface will be workable within, say, four weeks or so, once the guys there have 'approved' the registration. If things go like planned than everybody with a browser can post to alt.theosophy within a month. Then it would be a good idea to post a message to some newsgroups, inviting participation in alt.theosophy discussions. I submit that it might be a good idea if we had some topics prepared for discussion (if we invite people), like: . the history (and future) of mystical/esoterical practices and study . the pagan origins of Christianity . what can Theosophy/theosophy mean for current civilization(s)? Alan>I agree that TI has a lot of work to do, but will the members get together and do it? Alan: that depends whether we have a clear vision of TI's goals and how to give form and substance to further these goals Alan> Ideally TI needs its own Web page with its own links and its own Web identity - like "TI.org" or "TI.com". Alan: I could ask Rene Mueller to provide some webspace for TI He has already many articles about Theosophy and links to Theosophical organizations, so I see no reason why TI would not fit into that. Alan>For TI to really make an impact needs work done by its members, and some sort of income or sponsorship. Sponsorship would be best in some ways, so long as the sponsor(s) did not want to control what was put out. Alan: there is no need for sponsors (though if somebody would like to donate money to it I wouldn't object..). If we can use webspace provided by others why not use it. www.spiritweb.org is an initiative by Rene Mueller and he is willing to 'house' any information pertaining to spiritual affairs, I think. His site attracts a good number of people daily. JRC> Before even really beginning such an endeavor, however, there is a deeper issue to take up: What is out *intent* in putting the time and energy into "TI Web"? What, *specifically*, do we hope to accomplish? Who do we want to reach? What do we wish them to do when we reach them? *Who* will answer questions, and how will they be answered . John: TI is just developing. It's a concept right now. I guess it will take a lot of time for TI members to discuss (and agree) on the questions you raise. I understand that theos-buds is a forum for that? JRC>We must also remember that the Web requires a very specific sort of presentation to be successful - think of it as the computing version of "channel - surfing" on a TV. *Most* who cruise the Web visit dozeens of sites every time they log on. . John: would you like to write some introductory material (in HTML) for TI? JRC> ..define what they want to accomplish, and in the rare cases where desired outcomes are vaguely defined, never check to see whether the outcomes have been accomplished - and I'd hate to see TI fall prey to that trait). John: one of the things I would like TI to accomplish is to present a clear picture of the history of esotericism/mysticism/occultism/theosophy (rather than Theosophy) *throughout the ages* to a potentially large audience. I know that Alexis is interested in this history too. My personal opinion is that this kind of presentation, combined with comparitive study of the diverse writings and sayings of mystics/occultists/esotericists, could be of great service to many seekers, because it shows the incessant strive of many humans to gain Self-knowledge (knowledge of the spiritual) and the many ways to do so. This kind of thing belongs to the second (and third) object and has been neglected too long by the various TSs, I think. Martin euser@euronet.nl From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 8 12:19:11 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:19:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199606081219.OAA02789@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Egregore Kay Ziatz> Are western theosophists acquainted with conception of egregores? I'm not sure because i haven't read in theosophical books about it. I assume a large thoughtform which is formed by a collective thinking of a some community, like poltitcal party, religion or even Theosophical Society :) Each member feeds an egregor by his thoughts and gets in return a protection. Egregore, of course, don't wanna lose his members because they feed him. And a man can participate in different egregores, but they should not be enemies to each another. Kay: some Rosicrucian organizations work with the 'egregore'. It's a kind of collective thoughtform as you say and often associated with the mystical 'Rosy Cross'. I know because I was a member of a Rosicrucian organization in the past. Rosicrucians are supposed to meditate on, place their consciousness in the egregore (it's supposed to help them attune to higher states of consciousness).. About the power of thought I can say this: it certainly is a factor in becoming rich, but it's more complicated than just being part of an egregore. Martin BTW, in one of your posts you mentioned Max 'Haindel'. His name is: Max Heindel. An important figure in one of the Rosicrucean Fellowships. There's even a webpage with many of his writings.. From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 8 15:43:31 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:43:31 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960608114330_322081886@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: A new breakthrough on alt.theosophy? Daniel, I hope it works. I can post to it from my Ripco account now and I saw my posting up there but if this works it will be a great improvement. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 8 15:44:08 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:44:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960608114405_322082249@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: More on alta vista and alt.theosophy: CHUCK Daniel, Great news. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 8 15:44:23 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:44:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960608114423_322082350@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TSA? Alan, Don't feel bad about having too many things going on in your brain at once. The same thing happened to me when I was creating the Earth and ended up with slugs instead of the nice four-hundred legged mice I was working on. God From RIhle@aol.com Sat Jun 8 19:00:16 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 15:00:16 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960608150015_322208664@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Wolf-Trap Three I am just like you. I am trying to work this T/theosophy thing so I can rise above everyone else who is trying to work it. Why deny the fundamental psychogenetic mechanism of the long journey back to the Self? It is the essential nature of ~I AM~ to be without peer. If you look around and find you have some peers crowding you on the rung of the ladder upon which you stand, it is only natural to try to ascend to the next rung and leave them behind. When you get to ~I AM~, you can relax: you are as high as anyone can get. You are even higher than your own semi-Selves who did all that climbing for you. You say that when it comes to T/theosophy you have no interest in trying to establish yourself as superior to everyone else? Sure, sure: that is why you just announced yourself as superior to those who may have such a base motive. You are pure; they are not; you are BETTER. You say that the foregoing is just one of those existential catch-22's that one can never escape but only ~transcend~ by living "outside the context" of where the dilemma is formulated? Well, that understanding makes you BETTER, too, doesn't it? Trust me. The problem is insurmountable. Where a semi-Self ("ego-formation") is found at all, I can assure you that it will be fighting to establish its own particular ~I-AM-such-and-such~ as dominant over everyone else's similar ~I-AM-such-and-such~. If that superordination cannot be accomplished, the semi-Self disappears and another semi-Self tries its luck. Did you trust me in the foregoing? Good. Then the mental semi-Self I was using a moment ago gained the subordinate it was after. That particular egoic-wolf got a meal, so to speak. And we have been doing a lot of talking about wolves and sheep. After giving the subject much thought, however, I have concluded that there probably ~are~ no sheep. There are only wolves and more wolves, the ostensible difference being merely which wolf-trap the wolf is in. Let us see how the traps might work regarding the issue of capitalizing the ~T~ in ~Theosophy~: 1) The Desire-Mental Trap. This semi-Self is the delusion "I REALLY AM the idea I am drawn to." A person indulging at this level would be attracted by the ideas in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and more or less promptly "believe" in them, even if he or she only understood their rough outlines. A wolf in this trap would want the term ~Theosophy~ to apply in a strict-letter way only to what could be found in specific "Source Materials." He or she would be authority-oriented and perhaps use quotations heavily. He or she could feel BETTER than others because his or her egoic delusion is based upon "pure-strain" knowledge; additionally, he or she would have the psychological satisfaction of "working in the cause of something Really important." 2) The Mental Trap. This is the desire-free mental semi-Self. Here, simple like/dislike for ideas is replaced by pure, dispassionate reason. Source Materials would still be relied upon, but a personal, objective understanding of the subjects involved would take precedence over HPB's version of them if it became necessary. The trap here is that because so much reading and ratiocination is necessary to understand THE SECRET DOCTRINE, the person who regularly indulges a mental semi-Self of this nature often forgets to keep asking if all the elaborata he or she is learning is ~actually true~. In any case, the wolf in such a trap would welcome the capital ~T~--as long, that is, as his or her personal understandings of the subjects could be included under the "Theosophical Tent." The person would naturally think he or she was BETTER than those who came to him or her to be taught "Theosophy." 3) The Spirit-Mental Trap. This is the trap for the cool people. They have taken seriously the definition for small-~t~ ~theosophy~ and try to develop "transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception" in order to get at Truth for themselves. For them, a capital ~T~ in ~Theosophy~ is only acceptable in the same sense as the capital ~T~ in ~Truth~. Sometimes people do not stay in this trap for more than a moment, but then slip back into the Mental or Desire-Mental Traps. That is ok, since what they bring down with them cannot but help in some way--especially in the development of coherent rational understandings. All in all, however, it is probably better to stay in the Spirit-Mental Trap for as long as possible. Actually, there is only one little drawback to it: the tendency to go around thinking, "If other people could only see the divine inspiration in my ideas, they would realize that I must be ABSOLUTELY BETTER; therefore they should probably be worshiping me." Can it be that your secret-of-secrets is that you have had that thought from time to time? I am just like you: I wouldn't admit it either. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 8 19:20:38 1996 Date: 08 Jun 96 15:20:38 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Core Teachings Message-Id: <960608192038_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM> >Martin comments: if we view swabhava as operating on all planes of >existence, then their would be a spiritual swabhava too. We don't view swabhava as operating on all planes. At least, I and Buddhism don't. It only operates on the lower four planes (physical, astral, mental, and causal). Above the Abyss, the sense of oneness obliterates all swabhavic tendencies. >Martin comments: if it is a circle, then what about progressive evolution, >a key concept in theosophy? "Progressive evolution" is an illusion, a maya, just like swabhava. Both are very real on the lower four planes, but do not exist on the higher planes. >Martin comments> But most of us (all?) need several lifetimes to >complete this circle. Every next life we get closer to this unity >of Self with Not-Self (if we tread the spiritual path). >So, don't we see a spiral here instead of a circle? Yes, there is a spiral, but it exists within an overall circle. In order to understand reincarnation, go back to its very beginnings and ask yourself where it all starts. There cannot logically be any "beginning" as such. This is exactly what gets Christianity into so much logical hot water. We only get out of this delimna by assuming a circle--we begin as spiritual, go through countless manvantaras of spirals both downward and upward, and then wind up spiritual again--a big circle, without beginning or end, and without logic problems. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 8 19:20:50 1996 Date: 08 Jun 96 15:20:50 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Owls and Vultures (to Eldon) Message-Id: <960608192050_76400.1474_HHL30-2@CompuServe.COM> >Reading and studying *by itself* will eventually have >to end, as you say. But it does not stop, it's just >that there are other changes going on in a student, >other inner processes that are engaged. Agreed. As far as I know, everyone on theos-l still loves to read. Speaking for myself, my reading was compulsive-obsessive. Now it is just for enjoyment. >As a general rule, I'd expect the refinement and development >of the mind to continue along both intellectual and >mystical lines. Agreed. I discovered that having a mystical experience was just the first step of a long journey. I was amazed to discover the recent statistics that 30 to 40 percent of Americans have had a mystical experience. In some cases it is pathological because they don't understand it. Apparently there are some lurkers on theos-l who have had this, but don't want to admit it. It turns out that most people don't like to talk about such things (1/3 of everyone who comes close to death, for example, will have a near-death-experience) because few will understand it (doctors least of all). Psychologists are only now realizing have prevalent spiritual experiences really are. > The ordinary process of thinking about things is not enough. >This doesn't mean, though, that the thinking process >isn't useful in understanding and explaining the >insights that may come in a flash. The mind is still >useful in the process of finding truth. The human mind is necessary in order to assimilate the experience into our worldview. The assimilation of a spiritual experience into our worldview is absolutely essential in order to maintain sanity. This is the main reason I like universe models--they structure spiritual experiences in a way that the mind can understand them. > The mind does not stand, I think, in the >way of accessing Atman or Buddhi. We don't "bypass" >the mind, but rather learn to end some of its maya >creating, reality-slaying activities. In a sense, the ordinary mind is Buddha. In another sense, the ordinary mind is the slayer of the real. Bypassing the mind is a valid way of thinking of the process, because all universe models show the higher planes "above" the mental plane or manas. Thus, to go above the mental plane, we must go above the mind. Now obviously this is a metaphor for what is really going on. However, such "maps" or models are necessary because what is really going on is too hard for the human mind to grasp otherwise. I agree that we " end some of its maya creating, reality- slaying activities" in the sense that Buddhism would have us remove the dust from a mirror (the normal mind being likened to a dust-covered mirror). >At normal temperatures, I'm not sure if space (of this >plane) is completely filled with particles. No, not with "normal" particles, but with virtual particles and what has been called the quantum foam. >But space is not a "place" nor a "container" as we may >think of it in the west. It is more like being-ness >itself. External things are created, moment-by-moment, >by the "space" behind them. I am not familiar with the Space=Beness equation. I have always preferred to think of Space as one side of a duality--the other being Motion. I think of Beness as a word used to define nonduality, and thus is non-dual. Another name for Motion is consciousness-center. So we get the equations: Motion+Space=Monad Consciousness-Center+Space=Monad I+Not-I=Monad Beness>Monad Spirit+Form=Matter and so on... >It would be possible to write about them at times, but sometimes >it deals with intangibles and may seem somewhat mystical... If you are going to bypass the psychic realms and go directly to the spiritual, then we would expect "intangibles" and something mystical. This should not be a problem, but rather a given. > As for myself, I feel more prepared to >discuss the approach in general terms, talking about what it is >and offering it as useful ideas to consider. Sounds to me like this would make a great thread. > And I'd agree that there >sometimes come bifurcation points in life where one's old >order ends and one is subject to new cycles ... But the >flowering of the mind continues, and is never put aside. It >just becomes a tool for expression yet higher experiences. Agreed. Generally this "flowering" takes the form of creativity--writing, poetry, art, or such. >And when I talk about the spiritual-intellectual approach, >I'm talking about these higher experiences, this *something* >that comes after making breakthroughs and moving beyond a >brain-mind reading of the literal writings of Theosophy. If you mean the intellectual bifurcating into the spiritual, then I agree. This is the real goal of jnana-yoga. > ...We have two people with the same >"experience", but entirely different inner states. It's the >inner states, I'd say, that the true difference is to be found. No question about it. > ...This can be >done *inside*; we don't have to externally become "wolves" >and outcasts in society. No, but it does happen that way sometimes. > I've never denied >psychic reality, just, in many cases, it's objectivity. I'd >consider it as subjective in the same sense as dreams are, >with experiences arising out of one's own elementals, out of >the contents of one's own psyche, and not as a direct line to >truth nor proof that one has "real experience" and is worthy >of guru status. Psychism is like dreaming in that both take place on the same astral and mental planes, and use the same sensory equipment. Our psyche already has within it the highest truth (depending on how we define psyche, I suppose) and this can be expressed in both psychism and dreams. In this you and I differ. However, I agree that most psychism lacks any spiritual quality. I don't think anyone will disagree with you that a psychic experience doesn't make us a guru. The "proof" about "real experience" has to do with synchronicity in that it depends on whether the information we learn is meaningful to us or not. Psychic data that are meaningful are "real" indeed. I say this because I believe that reality is physical, psychological, and spiritual. You seem to be ruling out the whole realm of the psychological as somehow unreal. >Purucker's statements regarding down playing the psychic were >directed to esoteric students, to people serious about treading >the path, and with some sign that they were actually serious >about doing it. Judge discovered something interesting about "serious" American occultists--they are not terribly good at it. He wrote: "experience has shown two things: (a) that the members as a whole are not advanced enough to be able to quickly grasp the Instructions so far given out by H.P.B., whether studying alone or in Groups, and (b) That all need encouragement and assistance from others who have been engaged in theosophical studies." (E of the O, Vol III, p, 311) In other words, he found that his average students were not able to understand the teachings. Is it any wonder, then, that he (and Purucker) felt the need to keep warning people about psychism? From what I have seen on theos-l, most are a cut above Judge's students (Judge would be proud, I think). So, it is doubtful if his warnings are still applicable. >The only *serious* danger that I'd always tend to warn people >against would be any attempt to do things with kundalini. What can I say? I practiced with Kundalini before coming into Theosophy. > But sustained negativity, over an extended >period of time, is like any other type of abuse. Eventually >a battered partner needs to get out of a negative relationship. >I suspect that some subscribers have caught on to this quicker >than most, and have quickly departed with few scars to show >for the experience. This is one of the reasons that I think >we've had such a high turnover in subscribers ... Agreed. Lets try to get on with it. Jerry S. Member, TI From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Jun 8 19:59:06 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 13:59:06 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Unsu*scribe In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Michael Hanna wrote: > Somebody please tell me how to unsu*scribe from this list? I've tried > twice and nothing seems to happen. Actually, theos-l is sorta like the Hotel California of the soul ... You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Tee Hee, -JRC From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 8 01:28:11 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 02:28:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? In-Reply-To: <960607192039_321597633@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960607192039_321597633@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alex and Alan, >All Rudy has to do is put a link in his web page to alt.theosophy. > >Chuck MTI, FTSA Better wait until everyone can post to it succesfully, no? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 23:18:37 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:18:37 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608231837.006a5df8@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Unsu*scribe At 02:57 PM 6/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >Somebody please tell me how to unsu*scribe from this list? I've tried >twice and nothing seems to happen. > >zen@freenet.hamilton.on.ca > http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ad255/Profile.html > http://www2.apple.com/whymac/ > > >Micheal: As I understand it the process is simple: address: listproc@vnet.net .Leave subject blank message: signoff theos-l that should work From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 23:24:25 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 16:24:25 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608232425.006c8db8@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TSA? At 02:58 PM 6/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19960607082759.006b4dec@mail.slip.net>, alexis >dolgorukii writes >>> >>>Gibber gibber gibber ... >>> >Correction: Gibber gibber gibber :-) > >The cause of the gibbering is the mind of Bain trying to think of 18 >things at once and only managing 71. It is not, repeat, not, a serious >comment upon the trials and tribulations of members of the TSA. > >Oh dear... > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >You're forgiven. alexis From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 8 23:15:03 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 00:15:03 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <$Gp$DOA3lguxEwqb@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: TI has a lot of work to do? In-Reply-To: <199606081219.OAA02777@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199606081219.OAA02777@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser writes >John: one of the things I would like TI to accomplish is to present a clear > picture of the history of esotericism/mysticism/occultism/theosophy > (rather than Theosophy) *throughout the ages* to a potentially large >audience. I know that Alexis is interested in this history too. > My personal opinion is that this kind of presentation, combined with > comparitive study of the diverse writings and sayings of >mystics/occultists/esotericists, could be of great service to many > seekers, because it shows the incessant strive of many humans to gain > Self-knowledge (knowledge of the spiritual) and the many ways to do so. > > This kind of thing belongs to the second (and third) object and has >been neglected too long by the various TSs, I think. > >Martin >euser@euronet.nl > I think you have hit exactly the right note here, Martin. I shall certainly ponder on it at length ... 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 Jun 8 22:57:19 1996 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 23:57:19 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960608070625.006adaa8@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960608070625.006adaa8@pop.slip.net>, alexis dolgorukii writes >The question is: Is Rudy still speaking to us? Let John do some research and >we'll see what, if anything, can be done without much if any expenditure. >I'm going to ask Mike (who's back in Guernsey), to contact Alan and see if >he can help him, Mike has a web page of his own so he really knows the drill. > >alexis Thanks! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 8 07:08:25 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 00:08:25 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960608070825.006baba0@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: A new breakthrough on alt.theosophy? At 07:58 PM 6/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Yesterday I wrote to Alta Vista (one of the seach engines on the WWW) and told >them about the existence of alt.theosophy. I told them it would be >nice if they could start indexing it. > >They wrote back late yesteday and said they'd do it. > >And today by doing a Alta Vista search on Usenet groups, I saw >the latest 2 postings to alt.theosophy. I am going to now go >back and see if I can post something on alt.theosophy from > the indexing page of alta vista. > >Does this make sense? If you know what I'm talking about, try it >for yourself and see if it works. > >Daniel > > >Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Dan, please explain more fully for us computer illiterates. alexis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:56:25 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Voting Tally Info - Update Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960607185846.2677bea0@mail.eden.com> Hi Here is an update on the subject. Here follows a reply from John Algeo, National President and my response to it. I will update you all when I hear from him M K Ramadoss [Mailed by USPS] John Algeo's Letter to MKR: Wednesday, May 29, 1996 Dear Mr. Ramadoss: I am acquainted with the Illinois statutes to which you refer, and we are happy to observe them. They do not, however, appear to require an organization to send information by fax to someone who wants it. In your communication by your favored media of fax and e-mail, you might keep in mind some words from HPB that turned up on my desk this morning: -------Excerpt from HPB - BCW 9:245------ Sincerely yours, John Algeo National President Comment by MK Ramadoss: I have not listed the full text of the excerpt from HPB. If anyone is interested in it, I can post it here or e-mail it. MKR's Reply to John Algeo: FAX MESSAGE June 5, 1996 10:45 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America Wheaton IL Dear Brother: I have received your letter of May 29, 1996 mailed by you by USPS. I am very glad to note your statement "I am acquainted with the Illinois statutes to which you refer, and we are happy to observe them." The Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act provides the access to Books and Records of TSA by me or my agent for any purpose. In my last letter I had appointed you and William N Greer as my agents so that you and William N Greer as my agents can access the information details I am seeking and send them to me. Since, in your letter, you have not mentioned anything about this aspect, it appears that neither you nor William N Greer are willing to do it. If I am wrong on this please let me know. If you and/or William N Greer are not willing to act as my agent and send me the information, then the only option that is left for me is for me to fly down to Olcott personally or send my agent to do it. If this is to be done, it would be in the interests of everybody if we can come up with a mutually acceptable protocol or procedure so that full access to books and records (for the election tally and any other purpose) of TSA is provided to myself and/or my agent in compliance with the Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act. Developing such protocol/procedure will also help in any future requests that you may receive from other members of TSA. Your immediate attention in letting me know the procedure/protocol will be highly appreciated. Thanks for your quotes from HPB. As for my personal preference for e-mail and FAX, the reasons behind are simple and few. Firstly they are the most efficient, cost effective means of written communication and also save trees and other natural resources. As for e-mail, the incremental cost of sending e-mail is Zero. As I pay a fixed fee for unlimited Internet access (which is the current norm in Internet Access), I can send and receive unlimited e-mail messages at no additional cost. So every time I send a e-mail to any address anywhere in the world, I avoid the cost of paper copy, mailing and postage of atleast 32 cents each. Messages sent abroad result in more significant savings in postage. As for FAX also, the differential savings in cost is at least 32 cents postage. I watch my expenses on my correspondence as all the expenditures come out of my personal funds and I want the funds I have to be put to use with utmost efficiency and effectiveness. In this connection it would like to mention that that I had occassions to FAX messages to Adyar (which has FAX access) and I have had an occassion to receive a FAX response from Bro. Radha Burnier, our International President. I hope you can provide me with a (1) a quick response and (2) by FAX. With regards and fraternal greetings, Fraternally, M K Ramadoss Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 00:39:28 1996 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 01:39:28 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <6$1YaBAA72uxEwJi@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: The Leadbeater Affair Mime-Version: 1.0 In a historical item posted to theos-roots (CWL01.TXT) I have made mention of a 1908 Journal "The Theosophic Voice". A reprint of Vol. 1 is available from Alan Bain for $7.00 including postage. For further details e-mail Alan as below: --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html From RIhle@aol.com Sun Jun 9 04:22:39 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 00:22:39 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960609002237_322585100@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term >>Richard Ihle writes>> >>John even seems to want to make the ~Theosophical~ in >>~The Theosophical Society~ officially stand for just this >>definition; Eldon has never actually gone that far, but >>one suspects that this development would not disappoint him. >Eldon writes> >I would see a use for a diversity of specializations >among theosophical organizations, including one or a >few with a -- gasp! -- actual interest in preserving and >passing on the source teachings of Theosophy. R.I.> Does an organization based upon THE THREE OBJECTS seem like the natural candidate for specialization? Anyway, I do not believe that an ever-shrinking Society made up of experts on the source teachings, semi-experts, and some confused people who think they might want to be experts someday will help preserve or pass along HPB's writings. In my opinion, the genius of the Founders' original plan ~must~ be understood and followed--viz., attract a large number of Truth-seekers and a certain "elite" percentage will naturally start gravitating toward HPB's writings. The "HPB percentage" is never likely to change; the actual number it represents can only grow when more general Truth-seekers are attracted. I would not even object to the E.S.'s continuing control over the general Society if only they had some grasp on the original organizational idea and the forebearance and finesse to keep it in proper operation. You, Jerry S., and John Algeo are not the first to come up with the idea of trying to turn the ~entire outer Society~ into a simulacrum of the inner Society by means of further defining the doctrines that the outer is to be officially associated with. At this stage in its history, the Theosophical Society should almost be synonymous with general Truth-seeking of a spiritual and metaphysical nature. It is not. Thank you, certain present and former members, for you have now almost won your great battle to purge the Society of the little ~t~ theosophists. All the little t's wanted was to belong to a Society which championed the validity of theosophical ~epistemology~--i.e., the idea that valid knowledge is possible by transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception--and the idea of the personal Quest, wherever it might lead. Now, as you are preparing to give the little t's their hats and coats and politely explain that the T.S. is really not meant to be as general as that, where will you suggest that they go--the Unitarians? Indeed, as if it were not bad enough that you, certain present and former members, have almost succeeded in making the term ~Theosophy~ stand specifically for (or "be consistent with") HPB's understanding and articulations of the doctrines, you also want to make the very name of the Society officially ~stand for~ these doctrinal articulations as well. You want all foreheads clearly stamped with ~T = HPB~ before they enter the Tent. Paradoxically, the doctrines in question are my primary interests as well; however, my forehead is stamped with ~t = I'll See~. Let me hasten to say, Eldon, that I do not believe you and Jerry S. have the full-coagulating attitude which may well ultimately be responsible for the demise of the Society. (At this point, the Society's will-to-clot seems so inexorable that perhaps only direct intervention of the Masters can get it back on track toward becoming the pre-eminent organization for the type of Truth-seeker who is willing to consider the validity of theosophically based knowledge.) I am more-so thinking of others at the moment. . . . For example, those responsible for the possible passing of QUEST MAGAZINE. Is it really the money issue, or is it that the publication has too much of the traditional outer-Society, little ~t~ orientation for the liking of certain individuals? The Fog Index has been offered as another explanation. Yes, it might have been hard for some people to read, I agree; however, compared with the subjects that you, Jerry S., and many others want to more strictly identify as ~Theosophy~, QUEST may possibly live in people's memories as having had the reading ease of a tabloid. Extended discourses on swabhava, the mechanisms of Devachan, etc.: these will have to be analyzed with the new Fog-on-Fog Index. . . . Sometimes I cannot help but wonder whether the Theosophy-really-means-this people really want thousands of new, freely Questing people for the Society, or whether they just want a relatively few more individuals in student-bondage to themselves. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but have you noticed that many of those who want a strict doctrinal definition of ~Theosophy~ often include primarily those subjects they themselves are expert in? If you defined Theosophy, I would have to show up at your feet to learn what it is; if I defined it . . . well, you could give me a shine while I pontificated. . . . Eldon writes> >I think that Jerry S. is indicating that there is something >to the theosophical ideas themselves. Perhaps he recognizes >that there are definite doctrines to be written about and >presented to the new student, and that there's more to >Theosophy than a seeker's club where people compare opinions >but have nothing to come together to study apart from >playing "show and tell". Richard Ihle writes> If Theosophy (the org.) truely became a seeker's club, there would be a great renaissance. Right now it seems moving in the direction of becoming even more of a speaker's club for the approved and a sleeper's club for the rest. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 9 05:22:14 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 01:22:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960609012212_213471481@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: egregores Alex, No, a golem, at least traditionally, was a physical thing rather than a purely psychic one. Now even that is changing with the work of a woman in New Orleans, whose name I can never remember, who has created a statue that acts as a focus for necrotic energy that she calls her Golem. Chuck MTI, FTSA From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 9 05:22:58 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 01:22:58 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960609012257_213471786@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? Alex, Judging from Alan's postings, Rudy was still in TI, so I guess he is still speaking to Alan even though the rest of us are cast into outer darkness. Chuck From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 9 04:41:50 1996 Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 00:41:50 -0400 From: Bjorn Roxendal Message-Id: <9606090644.AA18912@alpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!! At 04:20 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Bjorn wrote: >>Have you or anybody else proven that he (Jesus) was NOT a real and living person? If >>that has not been proven, either, then it follows that it could be entirely >>possible that he WAS a real and living person, right? I mean, so far nothing >>is proven, right? > Alexis wrote: >Bjorn: May I suggest that you read Albert Screecher's book: "The Search for >the Historical Jesus", and then we can talk about this subject. I am not a >Christian "near Saint" Schweitzer is. I always prefer to refer people to >real experts. There is a relative consensus (not total consensus) among historians and "real experts" that Jesus was an actual living person of flesh and blood. There is any number of books about the subject, most of which support the conclusion that Jesus is a historical person, and that certain events in his life can be considered actual historical events. This, of course, still leaves much to be discussed, but your Screecher belongs to a minority among serious historians, if he claims that the person Jesus is nothing more but a myth. There is about one hundred pages of a book on the subject available on the net, chockful with references to sources that not only confirm Jesus' existence as a physical person, but also that he spent much of his time between age 12 and 30 in India and the Himalayas. The sources that contain references to his presence and activity in the East are pretty heavy duty, 63 of which are to be found in the Vatican (see http://www.skypoint.com/members/ceo/). One discourse cited in this book and attributed to Jesus, taken from a Tibetan manuscript, I find especially beautiful. The subject is "woman": 10 "Listen, then, to what I say unto you: Respect woman, for she is the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation lies in her. 11 "She is the basis of all that is good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. On her depends the whole existence of man, for she is his natural and moral support. 12 "She gives birth to you in the midst of suffering. By the sweat of her brow she rears you, and until her death you cause her the gravest anxieties. Bless her and worship her, for she is your one friend, your one support on earth. 13 "Respect her, uphold her. In acting thus you will win her love and her heart. You will find favor in the sight of God and many sins shall be forgiven you. 14 "In the same way, love your wives and respect them; for they will be mothers of tomorrow, and each later on the ancestress of a race. 15 "Be lenient towards women. Her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart, tames the brute in him, and makes of him a lamb. 16 "The wife and the mother are the inappreciable treasures given unto you by God. They are the fairest ornaments in existence, and of them shall be born all the inhabitants of the world. 17 "Even as the God of armies separated of old the light from the darkness and the land from the waters, woman possesses the divine faculty of separating in a man good intentions from evil thoughts. 18 "Wherefore I say unto you, after God your best thoughts should belong to the women and the wives, woman being for you the temple wherein you will obtain the most easily perfect happiness. 19 "Imbue yourselves in this temple with moral strength. Here you will forget your sorrows and your failures, and you will recover the lost energy necessary to enable you to help your neighbor. 20 "Do not expose her to humiliation. In acting thus you would humiliate yourselves and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing can exist here below. 21 "Protect you wife, in order that she may protect you and all your family. All that you do for your wife, your mother, for a widow or another woman in distress, you will have done to your God."<11> Bjorn wrote: >Another fact to consider is that there are many beings in our universe who >>have never lived on this planet. Any number of them may be encountered, for >>better or for worse, as the case may be. Alexis: >That is true, but one has no way of actually identifying them. The hard part >for those not Shamans, is deciding what is real. > This certainly is hard for anybody, even shamans. Ultimately the truth about the identity of a spiritual being, as the truth in any other matter, is known through the Holy Spirit. We have to go to the core of our own being and become familiar with the vibration of truth there, then compare phenomena at any plane with this vibration - if they are the same, the manifestation contains truth. The Christians talk about the "gift of discernment of spirits", which is another way of describing this. Bjorn: >>What about your "spirits". Can they be empirically proven? I know that you >>have talked about them, even on this list. Or are you testifying about >>matters that are unseen (physically) and can not be empirically proven >yourself? > Alexis: As a Shaman, "spirits"who are intrinsically unidentifiable, use >my body and voice as a transmitter for the Cosmic harmonic. Who they are, I >have no idea,although I do see them from time to time, and they are very >interesting indeed. BUT that is a far cry from saying I have met the Master >K.H. or The Master Jesus. So, you have "met" your spirits, from time to time, and tell people about it. I "commune" with this or that master/angel from time to time and tell people about it, sometimes. Spirits or masters, they are both nonphysical. If I ask you to "prove" your spirits to me empirically, you have a problem. You/your spirits may be able to produce some phenomena that you claim are caused by the spirits, and that is about it. I believe that "My sheep hear my voice", which would mean that many of us will recognize the presence of a master, and see the difference in vibration between him/her and astral imitators, etc, when given a chance. I have a habit of reading the vibrations/energies of anything/anyone I encounter and "judge" accordingly. Not without making mistakes, of course, but this technique has nevertheless led me to higher and higher manifestations of truth for at least 20 years. In no way am I claiming to be a channel or to convey "messages" etc. I am only sharing some experiences of communion with you, that's all. And I do this, because this is what have been most helpful and inspiring to me on my path, reading and listening to other's spiritual experiences. Take the book "Good Morning, Holy Spirit", by Benny Hinn, for example. He is a traditional Christian as far as doctrine goes, but his relationship with God the Holy Spirit is so tangible and real that it has an enormously uplifting and inspiring effect on me to read his biography. Is he deluded? Is he a victim of "glamour" etc? Read and judge for yourself. I have >met several people whom I consider to be Adeptii, but they were in the >flesh. You seem to think it OK to mention that you have met embodied Adeptii, but I am breaking the rules when I mention that I have had contact with spiritual ones. To me this does not make sense. Some of the spirits I work with and see may indeed be at that level >but I would never presume to say so. If one is going to be an occultist, one >must follow the rules of occultism. I do not claim to be an occultist, and I believe that the occult rules have changed during the last 100 years. That which used to be "hidden" has been made much more available to the public, through activities like Theosophy, but certainly not limited to theosophical organizations. Theosophy was just one step, one part in a grand plan to lead mankind towards higher consciousness and a golden age. >Many people have called Mme. Blavatsky a fraud, and in some instances they >may be right. But reading her words one finds they are anything but >superficial and banal, they may be absurd and ridiculous, but they are never >banal. The theosophical writings that are banal and superficial were mostly >written by Bishop Leadbeater and his many imitators, and they in fact are >the basic sources for Elisabeth clair Prophets writings. >> >>I have also studied her printed and spoken word, as those of her >>predecessor, Mark Prophet. I have meditated on the energies and >>consciousness content of the material, studied their auras and so forth, and >>have come to an ENTIRELY different conclusion. > >His name by the way, was Mark Probbert (he was her husband, not simply her >predecessor). She changed it after his death to suit her purposes. Yes, they were married. No, his name was Prophet. He was born Prophet, his father bearing that name from his Irish ancestry. Mark was born in Chippewa Falls and his name etc is a matter of public record. This is >one of the many reasons I find her extremely questionable. So, now that obstacle should be removed. One of the joys >of being a doddering old man is that I can say I met him once or twice. I >liked him and thought he was a valid psychic. Regarding psychics, please read http://home.earthlink.net/~futurecon/channel which exposes channeling and psychicism in a theosophical spirit. I have seen many psychics, perhaps even valid ones, but have never gotten anything of value from them. The masters don't work from the psychic (astral) plane, as you know. Mark certainly was not a psychic in vibration. There is some info available on the net, both on Mark and Elizabeth Prophet (http://www.tsl.org/ecp.html). Also http://www.tsl.org/melton.html is interesting, since it is an excerpt from Encyclopedia of American Religions, and not written by a member of her organization. Bjorn roxendal@alpinet.net From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 9 06:56:26 1996 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 23:56:26 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960609065626.006ac548@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? At 06:58 PM 6/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <960607192039_321597633@emout14.mail.aol.com>, >Drpsionic@aol.com writes >>Alex and Alan, >>All Rudy has to do is put a link in his web page to alt.theosophy. >> >>Chuck MTI, FTSA > >Better wait until everyone can post to it succesfully, no? > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >Alan: That's a very good point to make. Until the day before yesterday I could reach alt.theosophy and read it but only post to people individually. I don't think I ever got a full list of the messages. As of yesterday, I have lost it altogether. Tomorrow I will try to get John to help me see what's wrong, and if that is to no avail, I'll call Slip.net tech service on Monday and see what the story is. This is very frustrating. alexis From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 9 07:13:23 1996 Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 00:13:23 -0700 From: alexis dolgorukii Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960609071323.006b6e34@pop.slip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot of work to do? At 09:19 PM 6/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <199606081219.OAA02777@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser > writes >>John: one of the things I would like TI to accomplish is to present a clear >> picture of the history of esotericism/mysticism/occultism/theosophy >> (rather than Theosophy) *throughout the ages* to a potentially large >>audience. I know that Alexis is interested in this history too. >> My personal opinion is that this kind of presentation, combined with >> comparitive study of the diverse writings and sayings of >>mystics/occultists/esotericists, could be of great service to many >> seekers, because it shows the incessant strive of many humans to gain >> Self-knowledge (knowledge of the spiritual) and the many ways to do so. >> >> This kind of thing belongs to the second (and third) object and has >>been neglected too long by the various TSs, I think. >> >>Martin >>euser@euronet.nl >> >I think you have hit exactly the right note here, Martin. I shall >certainly ponder on it at length ... > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: >Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html > >I agree entirely, This is a very valid activity for T.I. as it isn't "set in concrete" on any particular position. I think it is appropriate under all three objects, but most appropriate of all under the T.S. Motto: "There's no Religion Higher Than Truth". alexis From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 9 16:01:13 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 11:01:13 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609110339.212f7286@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Usenet alt.theosophy Hi do you know that in usenet, after a message is posted, in most cases the message can be deleted if you think you have goofed. I picked up a message on this subject. If any of you are interested, please e-mail me. Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 9 16:22:26 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 11:22:26 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609112452.08a7774a@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? At 11:41 AM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >Alex, >Judging from Alan's postings, Rudy was still in TI, so I guess he is still >speaking to Alan even though the rest of us are cast into outer darkness. > >Chuck > Chuck: I recently sent a msg to him re adyar e-mail and got a quick reply. Have any of you sent him e-mail recently? Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 9 16:28:50 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 11:28:50 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609113116.08a7adf8@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: alt.theosophy Hi It appears that the problem of not getting alt.theosophy stems from the service the Internet service provider uses to get the usenet "feed". Mine is getting it from uunet and I got the messages day after alt.theosophy was inaugurated. some providers are totally ignorant. when I mentioned to a friend of mine, the provider told my friend that there is no such use group as alt.theosophy. I am using a program called freeagent whichdoes a wonder ful job of handling usenet groups. ...Doss Ramadoss Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 9 16:36:33 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 12:36:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960609123633_552526669@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do? Alan, No, there is no need to wait. Do it now. Chuck the Impatient, MTI, FTSA From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 9 16:37:42 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 11:37:42 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609114008.08a7caa4@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosophist Murdered in Kashmir Hi Here is a sad story of a theosophist who was murdered in Kashmir. Without going into the politics of the situation, here is a man who is also a theosophist who tried to put into practice the objects of TS and Theosophy. May his soul rest in peace. I picked this from Altavista when I searched for Theosophy. Ramadoss ******************************** KASHMIR: PAST AND PRESENT Unravelling the Mystique By Prof. Mohan Lal Koul ******************************** ************************** CHAPTER NINETEEN Muslim Fundamentalism ************************** The Muslim terrorists of all hues hold aloft the banner of Muslim fundamentalism to rally the Muslim masses for establishment of Islamic state cleansed of other ethnic groups called kafirs (infidels) in their parlance. Brain washed in POK camps, they let loose a reign of terror to frighten away the Hindus, who as per formulations in Zia-plan, represented India and its value system in Kashmir. The unholy and vicious combine of Islam and Klashnikov led to the near-total weeding out of all vestiges of humanistic culture of Kashmir with its roots deeply embedded in the hoary past of Kashmir. The forces of religious bigotry enjoy absolute sway over Kashmir marking a water-shed in the history of Muslims having chosen to bid adieu to indigenous values of humanism for tribalism, barbarity and medieval thought nuances. The Jamaat-i-Islami upholding the medieval thought structure as its guiding-star seeped the virus of Muslim comrnunalism and worst brand of bigotry inlo the otherwise healthy social and cultural pattern of Kashmir standing for tolerance, non-violence, mutual accommodation and good-will. The organisation directly linked with the Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan consistently worked for realisation of Pak-objectives in Kashmir, both political and religious. With Muslims as the predominant section of the populace, it made inroads into the entire polity of Kashmir with a design to realise secession of Kashmir from the Indian Union by whipping up religious frenzy for jehad. In the process, the organisation earned patronage from the Muslim first generation learners, limited in vision and devoid of depth, for establishment of Prophet's governance. The base of the organisation found entrenchment and consolidation with the active participation of the rulers that be. The establishment of massive plethora of primary and middle-level schools in areas where education and schooling, prior to 1947, were the rarest commodity led to the creation of a mass of school teachers, mostly low level matriculates and middle passes, nearly semi-literates, falling into the trap of Jamaatist propaganda, vicious and poisonous in approach and content. Highly motivated and viciously biased, they poisoned the growing mind-set of the blooming buds at an early age. Utterly incompetent and worthless in matters of initiating them in educative processes, they as per their orientation doled out misconceived ideas about religion and its role for islamization pogrom. The college and higher secondary school teachers working under the impact of Jamaat-i- Islami found encouragement at the level of Muslim bureaucracy committed to the same myopic ideals. Mohammad Shafi, a Minister in Sheikh's and Farooq's cabinets, with a track record of turn-coat politics and deep-set commitments to Jamaat-i-Islami, finally took comfort in the lap of Muslim fundamentalism only to nourish it from a seedling to a full branched-out tree. He in his capacity as a minister of education not only planted Jamaat workers in educational institutions of all levels but provided them with political shield and patronage. He was the person, who confronted the Shiekh, when government orders vere issued to ban all Jamaat-run madarsas in the valley of Kashmir. The Jamaat-i-Islami as an organisation spearheading Muslim bigotry and parochialism established its own network of Madarsas (schools) and study circles running into thousands. Its aims were political and instruments to realise them were jehad, anti-Hindu persuasions and myopic conceptual frame. The thought structure as upheld and propagated by it was in direct opposition to the indigenised Islam, which had firmer roots in the conceptual ambience of the risis and non-sectarian Sufis. That is why average Muslims assumed hostility unto the organisation including its interpretations of the Holy Text. Operating with single pointedness and with no forces to counter them, the motivated cadres of the organisation corrupted the mind-set of the semi-literates working in educational institutions and newly sprung up professional colleges. The ordinary employees with least educated mind finding slots in higher echelons of power structure with the aid of two seniority lists and other communal criteria growing ambitious of a religious role took refuge under the shield of highly virile and aggressive expressions of Islamic resurgence and blind-folded ideological frame of Jamaat-i-Islami. What was worst for the Muslims as a community that the newly born educated elite of doctors, engineers, professors and affluent businessmen with links abroad got rivetted to the medieval thoughtstructure ignoring the scientific orientation that they were expected to develop by getting a brush with the broad spectrum of scientific knowledge and technological developments as a result of greater chances of their exposure to such developments with their major impact on developing societies. The Muslim lawyers rooted in absolute Muslim bigotry pandered the dictates of the Jamaat-i-lslami to establish the Shariat courts. The Muslims in general were issued a fiat to take their law suits to the Shariat courts for decisions. With its absolute abhorrence for anything liberal and modern, the Molvis of the Jamaat held Shariat courts to settle disputes ranging from talaq to legal suits. What is astounding that the Muslim lawyers succumbed to the blind forces of Jamaaat bidding farewell to and parting ways with modern interpretations of law from non-sectarian and liberal perspectives. Most of the Shariat courts are said to be bossed over by the Muslim terrorists, who are by and large semi-literates and the Muslims in general submit to the decisions of such courts speaking volumes for the Muslim mind. The Shariat courts are presided over by one Abdul Rahman War, who flourished under the direct patronage of Mohammad Shafi, a minister in Sheikh's and Farooq Abdullah's cabinets. Harbouring hate-love relations with the Minister, he most of the time worked as his hireling executing his disruptive designs and sometimes deflected away from him only to find refuge in various political formations suiting his personal gains and ambitions. Rahman War fought elections on the ticket of the Muslim United Front, but failed to make it to the Assembly. Having forged firm links with the Muslim terrorists and other ISI sponsored subversives, Rahman War was installed as the Chief custodian of the Muslim religious conscience. He led to the establishment of a massive network of Shariat courts littered over the valley of Kashmir. One branch of such Shariat courts functioning at Soyibugh on the fringes of the city of Srinagar was presided over by Rahman War to hear a plaint filed by the locals against a terrorist who had sex with a cow - a beastly act, to say the least. The case was heard and the Shariat court held the terrorist guilty and was punished. But the punishment could not be executed against the gun-totting terrorist (a Mujahid to Muslims), for obvious reasons. The cow having suffered the lechery of a brute was declared as polluted and hence to be killed with specific orders to the Muslims not to eat her flesh. Under a fiat of the Shaliat court, the polluted cow was pushed down a ditch killing her instantaneously. The owner of the cow recovered the carcass, hacked it into pieces and sold it to the Muslims. These are their "great" Shariat courts ! The doctors with patients littered round them, groaning in pain and agony, needing their utmost care and attention, said namaz in the wards of government run hospitals and institute of Medical Sciences and devoted their vigour and energies to the construction of mosques in hospitals and that too with maney from public exchequer, least bothering about their professional ethics. Fleecing patients at their privately run clinics, they as a device of fraud and deceit exhibited unprecedented zest for Islam and its ascendancy and as patients of religious paronnoia raised a bogey of Islam in danger spearheading religious bigotry and narrowmindedness as a remedy to the socio-political problems. The university and college teachers mostly hailing from the homes of first generation learners, obviously limited in eye range and lacking in mellowed perspective, fell a prey to the Jamaatist pogrom of the genocide of Hindus and their conversion as an alternative to genocide and also secession from India, despite socio-politico-economic resurgence as a boon of accession to the democratic polity of India. Despite a university, there is hardly a Muslim deserving the appellation of an intellectual as academic excellence and depth are no priorities. One Qayum Rafique, Head of the Department of History, University of Kashmir, has been withdrawing his published thesis Sufism in Kashmir from the market under Islamic onslaught as the book thoroughly exposes some vital facets of Medieval Islam in Kashmir. The university and college teachers have been responsible to a larger extent for the spread of Jamaat tentacles deep into the Muslim fabric by providing leadership role to the organisation rooted in absolute religious bigotry and obscurantism. The Muslim engineers living in posh colonies displaying glitz and glamour of ill gotten wealth and riches have bred corruption, disseminated corruption and established corruption as the foundation stone of the Kashmirian society. Most of them being the products of post-1960 era with a short history of education failed to rise above the moribund ideological frame and continued to owe allegiance to any trend of thought manifesting Khomeini brand of adventurism and religious resurgence with little persuasions for rationalist approach to the analysis of world developments especially in the domain of science, technology and positive thought. The band of engineers patronised Jamaat and its parochial ideology by way of augmenting its finances from the loot they had made of development funds. The state government has no hold on the disbursement of moneys tor execution of development projects and sufficient amounts of it go to the Muslim engineers, who feed the insurgency in Kashmir. Suffice it to say that the so called Muslim educated elite essenlially rooted in medievalism and archaic ideologies with no proclivities for rationalism and scientific temper wrought havoc with the Kashmirian fabric. They could have served as beacon lights for the onward march of society at large, but they got stuck up in the pools and puddles of Muslim backwardness, parochial thought ways and obscurantist models for socio-economic regeneration. As patrons of Muslim extremism and Muslim insulation, they threw a spanner to the pace of development bringing about a sea-change in the Muslim society as a whole in terms of socio-economic dynamics fearing the end of their supremacy over the Muslim social set-up having acquired new structured hierarchy. That they shied away from contemporary techna-cultural interface for the achievement of healthy perspectives in tune with the socio-political demands speaks for the regressive Muslinn mind keen to get shrunk back into the cocoon of stinking backwardness and myopia. The agenda of Muslim insurgency was opened up with archaic fundamentalist slogans sending deep shivers down the spine of the Hindu minorities. It marked genocide of Hindus and hounding them out of Iheir home-land. The main butts of attack were manifestastions of civilisational growth and development. All liquor shops excepting those belonging to the Muslims were raided and bottles looted only to be enjoyed in the privacy of dens. All video-parlours were fiated to be closed. Anybody daring flout the fiat was to be sprayed over with bullets. Cinema halls were padlocked. The Muslim women were fiated to be clad in black veils. Those defying the dress codes were subjected to brutal atrocities. Their tresses of hair were 'raped' and what was worst that acid was sprinkled over girls moving about without veils. Tailors were ordered to sew such clothes as would be in conformity with their fiats. Cigarette smoking was decreed to be stopped. Cosmetic shops were closed. The cassettes of film songs ever on in buses were totally banned and replaced by cassettes replete with venomous contents of Muslim bigotry and jehad. The entire Valley was flooded with mini-sized or big-sized wooden boards with the Quaranic injunctions exhorting to wage a jehad against infidels, God recompensing the Chazis with abundant fruits on the- earth and those dying in the process becoming martyrs. Any Muslin- saluting a Hindu by uttering 'namaskar' was threatened with death. At the commencement of terrorism dress codes were issued even for Hindu girls, who disobeyed and openly flouted them. The Hindus declined to accept any fiat from any ignoramus posing himself as a self-styled law-giver. Be it said that the Hindus essentially a community of micro-numbers with no guns to wield expressed their high pitched hatred and comprehensive contempt for the terrorist fiats issued by semi-literates with low and murky records of morals, (and muslims have already had a taste of it), but majority of Muslims obeyed the. fiats in letter and spirit sensing in them resurgence and glory of Islam and Islamic law but actually sinking them in the quagmire of tribalism, fascism and irrationality. The fundamentalist onslaught touched a new apogee when war was waged on books as repositories of knowledge and learning. Libraries throughout the Valley were ransacked only to denude them of volumes not conforming to the brand of knowledge upheld by the Jamaat-i-Islami fanatics.l Darwin as an exponent of evolution was exorcised as Islamic concept of creation is in sharp opposition to evolutionary perspective.2 All volumes dealing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution were removed from library shelves only to be destroyed. Jamaat-oriented teachers organised a protest against the continuation of Darwin and his Theory on curricula of under-graduate and post-gradate courses of study thereby underpinning their absolute contempt for rational expressions to explain the evolotionary growth and development of man. In sheer Nazi fashion, two thousand books from the library of the University of Kashmir were withdrawn,3 thus pruning and denuding it of most of the books of Shakespeare, Kant, Shopenhaeur, John Milton, H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. The tomes on the Indian philosophy as contribution to the realms of global philosophies were special butts of target and were withdrawn and mercilessly destroyed.4 The Jamaat-i-Islami launched a barbaric onslaught on N.C.E.R.T. books with their main accent on rationalism and cultivation of scientific temper. A library located in Batamallao, a den of Muslim terrorists, was looted and books destroyed. Some foot-path sitters selling books on Marx, Angels and volumes on progressive literature were manhandled and books looted. The library of the Information Centre run by Government of India was looted and then put to flames and leaping fires fed by the looted books after the fashion of Halaku Khan. Tej Bhan a prominent Hindu writer with a number of publications to his credit was brutally attacked by the Jamat-i-lslami hoodlums for his views supporting the evolutionary and sociological developments of man as unit of social fabric. His publication, Pahchan was torn to pages in the streets of Baramulla, Kashmir and what was worst that the police instead of providing him protection pounced on him and put him in lock-up for three months. The inhuman treatment meted out to a thinking being attracted the attention of the Indian Parliament, which thoroughly debated the issue of Tej Bhan, his publication and his unwarranted detention and stating it as as a gruesome attack on freedom of expression in a liberal democracy was unanimous in his unconditional release.5 This was how the Jamaat-i-Islami cadres, highly biased and narrow-minded, set an agenda for the worst brand of regimentation to the destruction of all rational views and expressions. The Jamaat hoodlums forcibly captured the canteen hall of the University of Kashmir with a view to converting it into a mosque. The Department of Central Asian Studies as a seminary of Muslim fundamentalism conducted myopic and lopsided researches from Islamic perspectives to the detriment of broad historical and cultural vision forming the plinth for resurgence of super-structural values leading to social and religious cohesiveness and harmony. The Iqbal Institute functioning under the aegis of the University of Kashmir has set pace for all myopic, narrow-minded and non-secular activities aiming at secession, social disharmony and religious hatred. Indiscriminate Killings of the Minority ---------------------------------------- The terrorists operating under the umbrella of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front were the first to resort to the dastardly killings of the Kashmirian Hindus. They in actual praxis are the same myopic fundamentalist and indoctrinated as the droves of others affiliated to Hizbul Mujahideen, Allah Tigers. Ikhwan-UI-Muslimeen, Janbaz Force, et al. Rooted in the hate Hindu syndrome, the Muslim terrorists as per Zia-plan postulations started on a virile campaign of harassing, intimidating and terrorising the Hindus making it amply clear that the Republic they nursed in their mind had no place for Hindus and others not subscribing to the faith of Islam. The agenda upheld by the JKLK terrorists might be the establishment of an Independent Kashmir, which for all practical purposes is synonymous with annexation to Pakistan. The Hindus as an ancient community of Kashmir were denied any station and role-model in the Republic establishing that it had to come up as an Islamic State. Subscribing to 'ethnic cleansing', the JKLF terrorists equipped with the highly sophisticated weaponry took to the wanton killing and butchering of the Hindus the same way as fish take to water. The brute gaining supremacy in the Muslim terrorists owing allegiance to Pakistan-sponsored outfits of all shades was hailed with loud applause and appreciation by the Muslims, especially their so called educated elite as a remarkable departure from the Hindu dominated Kashmirian ethos thereby establishing the crucifixation of reason and rationality as guides to a balanced, well-meaning and rational demeanour for purposes of living a corporate social life. The killings at first appeared selective, but in time gained the fury and frequency of a hurricane leading to the mass exodus of the hapless Hindus. The Muslim terrorists operating from mosques and concrete hide- outs said to be built with government moneys in Muslim localities put not fewer than fifteen hundred Hindus to bullets and torture killings. Some were brutally strangulated with steel wires while many others were hanged from trees till they were dead. Some were burnt alive while many were cruelly lynched and fleeced. In most cases, eyes of the victims were barbarically gouged out repeating the medieval tortures inflicted on the Hindus by their Muslim captors. The kidnapped Hindus pushed into the terrorist established underground hospitals manned by government employed doctors operating under an overall command of Dr. A. A. Guru, now slain, were subjected to the atrocity of blood-draining and cast off only to await death. The Hindu victims of the Muslim brutality were slaughtered, and their body-limbs broken or dis-membered. The Hindus, who were captured, were beaten black and blue and then thrown off as dead into the flowing rivers to meet their watery graves. Many Hindus were straightaway thrown alive into rivers to get drowned and killed. Many were tortured by branding with red-hot iron bars. Tongues of many victims were cruelly chopped off, hands and feet cut off and bosoms, foreheads and skulls battered and broken with axes and blunt weapons. Mr. Tika Lal Taploo, a prominent leader of Bhartiya Janata Par., was sprayed over with bullets in a lane nearby his house causing terror in the entire Hindu dominated locality. His popularity with the Muslims of the area got established when they in considerable numbers joined his funeral procession. The Muslim shops remained closed to mourn his death. But a word from the command circle room led to the sudden opening of shops. Mr. Nila Kanth Ganjoo, a retired Sessions Judge, was gunned down in the Hari Singh High Street in broad day light. Lying in a pool of blood, with clusters of Muslims watching the ghastly murder, all in hilarious and up-beat mood, the police prevaricating to arrive at the scene of murder and quite unusually nobody lifting his body or covering it with a sheet of cloth, the real Kashmiriyat appeared in the throes of being born. The charge against the slain judge was that he had sentenced Maqbool Butt, a Chinese and Pakistan trained spy and terrorist, to death for the gruesome murder of a Hindu intelligence officer, Ram Chand, whom he had chopped into bits, put in a sack and then thrown off. The judge had held him guilty of murder on the basis of the recorded statements from twenty-two witnesses, who were Muslims, one and all. The Hmdu judge was brutally slain and the Muslim witnesses were granted amnesty. A prominent lawyer, Mr. P. N. Bhatt, hailing from Anantnag, was mercilessly killed by pumping bullets into his face thereby exploding his skull. The Muslims inhabiting the neighbourhood of the scene of foul murder, a lane, chuckled and whispered, 'another is felled'. Mr. Bhatt's popularity with the Muslims could not save him from the terrorist wrath and not a single Muslim offered condolences on his brutal killing. Instead it was hailed as a victory for Islam. Mr. Lassa Koul, Director Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar, was put to bullets by the JKLF terrorists near the gate of his house at Bemina, Srinagar, where his old and ailing parents lived. The Doordarsan Kendra is infested wilh lots of employees, who have known anti-national credentials and are reportedly responsible for the murder of the Director. The then Deputy Minister of Information and Broadcasting has been allegedly responsible for the induction of such subversive elements into the Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar. The gruesome murder of the Kashmirian Hindus at the hands of the JKLF terrorists is proof sufficient to establish that they are communally motivaled to cleanse Kashmir of ethnic groups not attiliated to the Islamic faith. They declared war on the Hindus, who are un-armed and non-violent, only to annihilate and decimate them, kill and maraud them, loot and plunder them. Yet there are Indian ostriches to label them as secular. What a noxious misuse of the word secular! Could it be asked as to how it was necessary to kill and maraud Hindus? How would it assist in the processes of establishing an Independent Kashmir? Was Independent Kashmir meant for Muslims only? The genocide of the Hindus started by the JKLF barbarians was continued unabated by the numerous outfits vigorously executing Pak designs in Kashmir. The Hindus were maimed, mauled, brutally axed and put to bullets. The hateful brutalities inflicted in the name of Islam and Prophet's governance have added new chapters to the book of barbarism and medievalism. Mr. Dilip Kumar, a young man of twenty-nine years, hailing from Zainpora, was kidnapped, his dentures hammered out and twelve bullets pumped into his body. Mr. Bal Krishen Tutoo of Sheshiyar, Habbakadal was fired upon and grievously injured and in a critical condition carried to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, a den of terrorists, where Muslim doctors in utter glee and callousness did not care to attend on him, thus allowing him to kiss death, marking an eclipse of medical ethics in face of Muslim ethics. There were scores of Hindus who died for want of medical care in the government hospital intested wilh psychopaths masquerading as doctors. The barbarous terrorists killed Prof. Nila Kanth Lala, M.A. (History) M.A. (Economics) M.A. (Pol. Science), B.Ed, a veteran teacher, in the early hours of morning when he along with his family was boarding a truck to buzz off. The terrorists were none other than his students, whom he had nurtured and initiated only to drive away the brute from them. But the brute remained only to take his toll. In his capacity as a veteran teacher, much in demand, he entered hundreds of Muslim homes to teach and humanise their sons and daughters and that is how he was recompensed. Not a single Muslim shed a tear on his death. What a sad commentary on the Muslim parents whose wards Prof. Lala had initiated to enable them to live sixty years as adults and ten years as children! Mr. Brij Nath Kaul of Shopian in South Kashmir, a driver in Agriculture University, Shalimar, Srinagar was kidnapped from his residential quarter along with his wife. Koul in medieval fashion was tied by his legs with the jeep in which the terrorists were travelling. The gory spectacle was witnessed by hundreds of god-fearing Muslims, who in medieval fashion yelled in utter glee that his head was shattered, his leg was broken, his eye was smashed and his intestines were out. The grisly and ghastly murder of the Kashmiri Pandit represented a page from the palimpset of Medieval Islam high-lighting a true facet for Kashmiriyat projected by Farooq Abdullah, Saif-ud-din Soz, Ali Shah Geelani and more than most by Prof. Abdul Gani. Brij Nath Shah in his fifties hailing from Kupwara was killed by strangulation. He had got his name tattooed on his fore-arm and the terrorists erased his name by peeling off the flesh from his fore-arm. The peeled off flesh was preserved to be used as plaster for the edifice of Nizam-e-Mustafa. Mr. Chaman Lal Pandit, a teacher by profession, hailing from Badgam, was assured of full protection by his Muslim neighbours and that was how he stayed on in his native village teaching the Muslim learners only to draw them out of the cesspool of perpetuated ignorance by imparting them liberal education. He was kidnapped by the Muslim terrorists, killed and his body thrown on road-side to invite vultures. Not a single Muslim turned up even for condolences. Their assurances for his safety vanished like a whiff of vapour. Five Klashnikov wielders forcibly barged into the house of Mr. Ashwani Kumar Garyali, Chattabal, Srinagar and fired point blank at him leaving him in a pool of blood. His father, weeping and wailing, rushed to the local police station for a vehicle to carry him to hospital. The S.H.O., a Muslim, avoided and prevaricated and the poor father went on begging him for a vehicle. The Muslim officer taunted the Kashmiri Pandit, perhaps, not realising that he was a part and parcel of the genocide of Hindus. The same terrorists kidnapped Messers Chaman Lal Koul and Som Nath Raina, and strangulated them to death. Mr. Ashok Kumar, a young man of thirty years, hailing from Pulwama, was kidnapped by armed Muslim terrorists and broke all his body parts. Imploring for mercy, the terrorists carried him to the main crossing of the road and gouged his eyes with steel bars in presence of hundreds of Muslims got collected to witness the gruesome spectacle. Mr. Ashok Kumar Qazi, 32 year old, was caught hold of by the terrorists on the main road of Tankipora, Srinagar and was mercilessly beaten with iron rods and huge sticks and dragged into a lane where his legs were broken and was thrown inta a drain, shrieking and gasping. Nobody picked him up and the terrorists re-appeared on the scene only to shoot him to death. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bhatt hailing from Shopian was kidnapped from SMHS Hospital, less of a hospital and more a terrorist den, and was subjected to the atrocity of breaking his legs, chopping off his tongue and inflicting burns by cigarettes. He was rescued by CRPF jawans from the riverbed where he was cast off in a state of unconsciousness by the cruel terrorists. He is a pulsating proof of Muslim terrorism and barbarity. Mr. Avtar Krishen, hailing from Pulwana, was kidnapped and kept in captivity for a number of days. He was subjected to torture by cigarette burns and by peeling off his skin. Finally the Kafir's abdomen was ripped open and thrown off on a road side, thus marking a victory for Islam. Mr. R. K. Razdan, a resident of Chattabal, Srinagar was kidnapped and fleeced with a plastic insulated telephone wire. He fell unconscious and the terrorists taking him as dead threw him into the Jehlum. Gaining consciousness, Razdan crept towards the road only to be rescued by the BSF Jawans. His body bore cigarette burns and deep-cut wounds inflicted by sharp-edged weapons. Mr. Man Mohan Bhatt of Qazi Hamam, Baramulla, was taken by some of his Muslim friends to a tea-shop for a cup of tea. He was assaulted upon and kept in captivity and killed. His dead body was thrown from a vehicle on the road. All joints of his body were battered. There were multiple injuries on the muscles of bis arms and was put to hullets as well. Mr. A.K. Raina, Deputy Director, Food and Supplies, Srinagar was killed by the terrorists in his office chambers. Raina lay in a pool of blood and his subordinates, all Muslims, witnessed the gory murder gleefully. In reality, the schedule of killings used to be well within the knowledge of the Muslims working in government offices or living in various localities establishing a close nexus between the killers and bigoted Muslims. Prof. K.L. Ganjoo, a wellknown agricultural scientist, had a number of Muslim friends and students whom he had taught and initiated. Pandits fleeing from their localities had failed to make an impress on him as he was assured of total protection by his Muslim friends and taught. He had been to Kathmandu on an assignment for a short period and returned to his native town only in March, 1990. Prof Ganjoo was kidnapped and subjected to horrific brutalities by his Muslim friends and students, now turned frenzied terrorists. He was ultimately asked to walk into the river Jehlum without looking back; and he did look back wher he feared to get drowned and the bartarous terrorists fired volleys af bullets to end his life. The Muslim psychopaths relished Prof. Ganjoo's helplessness and pathetic state to the last dregs of it and it was only to establish Prophet's governance in Kashmir. Mrs. Prana Ganjoo, wife of Prof. K. L, Ganjoo, was kidnapped and gang-raped by the Muslim psychopaths. Her breasts were chopped off and as per police reports she had no body-limb intact and that was why her body was not handed over to her relatives for last rites. The police have declared her dead. But intriguingly her dependants have not been paid compensation so far. But many believe that she is in the captivity of the terrorists, who have converted her to Islam. Mr. Joginder Malhotra called out from his house was carried off in a gypsy. He was tortured and killed. His body was terribly mutilated and was beyond recognition. The Muslim hounds had dotted his testicles and other body parts with cigarette burns. There were stab injuries also dotting his mutilated body. Mr. Virendra Bhatt, a junior engineer, hailing from Nagam, fought a duel with a terrorist, who took out a pistol to shoot at him. But other accomplices fired at him from point blank range only to leave him bleeding profusely. The Muslim shopkeepers and neighbours watched the ugly murder, perhaps regimented to believe that Nizam-e-Mustafa was round the corner and murder of a Kafir was the only means to achieve and establish it. Mr. D. N. Mujoo, a scholar, philosopher and theosophist, was a retired headmaster, who throughout his distinguished career as a teacher had taught thousands of Muslim scholars in the schools he had served. He was a life long member of the Women's Welfare Trust, Kashmir, the first institution to establish schools in Kashmir for women of all religious shades under the umbrella of the Theosophical Society, Kashmir Shaivism, Theosophy and J. Krishnamurti were his forte. The terrorists, a pack of hounds, forcibly entered his residence at Rawalpora and slit his throat only to bleed him to death. He was fairly an old man, weak, infirm and emaciated. But Muslim fury knows no humanistic considerations and the cruelty of slitting his throat open was an essential cog in the establishment of Prophet's governance in Kashmir. Mr. Ved Lal Ganjoo. Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sopore fell a victim to armed Muslim bigotry. He was killed in his office chambers and all Muslim teachers having strong ties with Jamaat-i-Islami conspired to get him brutally killed. The principal had a distinguished career as a teacher and was known for his dedication lo the cause of education. And the Muslim terrorists cruelly killed him as he was a Kafir (infidel) with no place in Nizam-e-Mustafa. Mr. Sarwanand Koul Premi, a retired headmaster, resident of Anantnag, was confident of withstanding the Islamic hurricane as he had taught every dog in the village and hence could not be so ungrateful as to bite him. He had a brilliant service career and had held aloft the banner of love, affection, tolerance and good will. He was a poet and creative writer. He had the distinction of translating the Bhagvat Gita into Kashmiri language in metrical verse thereby adding richness and variety to the language. But, the Muslim terrorists had already drawn plans for his killing. Some of them called at his house asking him to accompany them for a word. As the genocide of the Hindus had already begun, his family wailed and moaned. He was taken away and his son, Virender Koul, insisting to accompany his father, was also carried off. Both of them were subjected to horrendous tortures. A nail was driven at the spot where he put a tilak -mark. His eyes were gouged out and body-limbs broken and was hanged from a tree for everybody to witness the grisly murder. His hairs were uprooted and body skin burnt and fleeced. His son was meted out the same atrocious treatment. Premi was a poet holding fast to the Advaita concept of 'I am truth'. He was another Mansur butchered by the Muslim bigots for the world-view he harboured and firmly clung to. Like Mansur, he was a paragon of virtue working for the moral upliftment of all. But the Muslim bigotry cannot permit dissent and shades of free thinking. Premi had a good library consisting of masterly works by eminent authors, scholars and poets. Besides Vedas, the Mahabarata, the Ramayan and the Bhagwatgita, he had a copy of the Quran, which caused tremendous amazement to the local boors and mercenary Afghans destroying his books and manuscripts after the Muslim fashion. Mr. D. N. Chowdhary, manager pre-cast cement factory, Wuyan was kidnapped from his office in presence of three Muslim officers. He was subjected to the worst-ever brutalities and tortures. His hands were cruelly broken and his tongue chopped off. His face was scarred and burnt by moving a red-hot iron-press on it. His eyes were gouged out. His body was thrown at a nearby village, Lethopora on Srinagar-Anantnag highway. It was an open exhibition of brutal savagery and atrocities inflicted on genial tempered Chowdhary would shame all the savages in the world. Numberless Hindu women were put to barbarous treatment by the Muslim terrorists. The tortures inflicted on them are unheard of even in the darkest period of medieval history. They were molested, raped and massacred only to establish the hatred the Muslim terrorist, harboured against the Hindus in general. Miss Kumari Babli and her mother, Shrimati Roopwati, were kidnapped from Pulwama. Both of them were gang-raped and strangulated and their dead bodies thrown on the road, thus marking a big triumph for Islam and Nizam-e-Mustafa. Shrimati Girija working in a government school in Bandipora had gone to collect her-pay from the school office. After collecting her salary, she called on her Muslim colleague in the same locality. Her movements were watched by the terrorists, who kidnapped her from the Muslim house. The Muslim colleague along with her parents did not even protest for the simple fact that she was a Hindu lady, a Kafir, the possession of whose body was halal. She was brutally gang-raped, stripped, placed on a bandsaw and chopped into two equal halves. And the brutalised Muslim terrorists committed the heinous crime far establishing a political system as conceived in their Nizame-e-Mustafa. Shrimati Sarla Bhatt, a low grade nurse working in the Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar was suspected to be aware of the terrorist activities planned by Dr. A. A. Guru, now slain and his cohorts in the Medical Institute. Sarla once by chance while on her duty was said to have overheard the conversation between Dr. Guru and Hamid Sheikh, Deputy Commandant of JKLF, now slain. Taken as an informer, she was eliminated at the behest of Dr. Guru, who had asked the nurse to go on leave but had not obliged him. Ashraf Chalkoo, a hawker from Baramulla, comrade-in-arms of Dr. Guru, along with many Muslim psychopaths raped her. Stripping her naked and slitting open her private parts, Sarla was brutally murdered an cast off on a road-side, thus installing a corner stone for the structure of Nizam-e-Mustafa. The genocide of the Kashmirian Hindus as planned by ISI and executed by the wilful Muslim terrorists was the epilogue to the bloody saga actually begun in 14th cenlury. The killings of men and women tellingly establish the cruel and inhuman tortures inflicted by terrorists on the Hindus. Accusing them of being informers, they launched upon their genocide, forcing the entire community to take to its heels without knowing where to take shelter. The brutalities perpetrated on them could not but frighten and chill the community to its bones. The fragile community was denuded of its brilliant men and women for no fault of it. The killings if done in other parts of the world would have raised world-wide protests. But, to the dismay of the Kashmirian Hindus, the state government in absolute shambles presided over by the bigoted Muslims connived at and abetted the genocide of the Hindus. Every effort was made to hoodwink the Indian public opinion by hiding the anti-Hindu thrust of the terrorist violence. The religious sentiments of the Hindus were deeply hurt by not handing over the dead bodies of hundreds of slain Hindus for last rites to their kith and kin residing in camps littered over the country. The spineless Government of India, too, seems to have a vested interest in concealing the genocide of the Hindus in Kashmir and inhuman and barbarous indignities and atrocities heaped on them. The civilised world sensitive to the human rights violations was kept in the dark about the massacre of the Kashmirian Hindus and horrendous torture inflicted on them. The civilised world is not aware of the fact that the Hindu women were kidnapped at gun-point, gang-raped, stripped naked and mercilessly butchered and hot iron seals bearing the expression JKLF and Pakistan Zindabad forged on their mangled bodies. That hundreds of missing women are in the captivity of the Muslim terrorists and their active collaborators was never highlighted by the powers that be. The plight of 3 lakh Hindus thrown out of their age-old homes and hearths living like worms in drains was never put on world focus. The Muslim terrorists wielding highly sophisticated and deadly weapons only to realise fundamentalist objectives were not projected before the world fora and opinion moulding bodies with a view to exposing their evil designs for ethnic cleansing in Kashmir. The state administrative setup conniving and abetting the genocide of the Hindus has been extremely hostile to the Hindus. But the ostriches of the echelons of power in the central Capital as a matter of design put a cover over the genocide of the Hindus and played it down as if Thames had not been on flames. The state bureaucracy and the central leaders appear to be on the same wave length, the former aiding the processes of genocide, loot and plunder of the Hindus and the latter providing it a cover only to conceal the battered and tattered fabric of Indian secularism from the public view. No strenuous effort can hide the reality that the Kashmirian Muslims harbouring visceral hatred against the Hindus did not tolerate 2% miniscule minority of the Hindus and hounded them out only to reduce Kashmir to a 'green ghetto'. The democratic and patriotic forces in the country must realise and awaken to the reality that the Muslims if in minority have pretensions for secularism and it in majority violently work for the establishment of an Islamic state. What was the fault of the Kashmirian Hindus ? Have they killed a single Muslim ? Why were they brutally massacred and tortured and their women-folk reviled, molested and raped? The world fora were never informed that the Kashmirian Hindus were hounded out as a prelude to the inaugural of a political system put on the foot-stool of Shariat (Islamic law). Open Loot and Destruction of Property ---------------------------------------- The Hindus of Kashmir throughout their chequered history have been subjected to frequent bouts of loot and plunder. The savage tribes of Bombas and Khokhas as per the historical records were hired by the Muslim bigots to loot and plunder the Hindus and in case of resistance they were ordained to be burnt alive in their houses. The same instinct of ferocity, aggression and savagery re-emerged and re-surfaced through the length and breadth of Kashmir in the wake of the forcible exodus of the Kashmirian Hindus from the bosom of their native land. As per the available data, 3 lakh Hihdus fled their homes and hearths only to save themselves from terrorist brutalities. They knew not where to take shelter and refuge. The armed Muslim hounds had launched upon a crusade against them designed to extirpate infidelity from Kashmir. The young and the old, the weak and the strong, the deaf and the dumb, the sane and the insane, men and women were put to bullets, untold tcrtures and agonies, medieval barbarities and savageries. The Hindus all in panic and terror boarded the first available bus or truck to go across the Bannihal Jawahar Tunnel leaving their house-hold goods and articles in their homes with doors locked and windows shut and barred. The loot and plunder of the Kashmirian Hindu homes was organised by the Muslim bigots with mosques as focal centres. The goods looted were collected and stuffed in them and later on distributed among the looters as booty leaving a tithe of it to augment the resources of the mosques. The droves of looters and plunderers are said to be not the anti-social and undesirable elements, but men who can be termed as prosperous by all standards. The fury of the looters was discernible when doors, windows and gates were either broken, removed or openings made only to break into the Hindu houses. The Muslims overpowered by predators and aggressive persuasions and traits indulged in loot and plunder with vengefulness. There is not a single Hindu home in the Valley of Kashmir which has not been looted and plundered with impunity. There are certain areas which have been subjected to a looting spree not only once but ten times. All the Hindu houses in the locality of Rainawari which was allowed to be under a siege of the terrorists have been subjected to loot and plunder umpteen times, thus denuding each house of its goods and articles essential for living a normal and comfortable life. The Muslim looters and plunderers removed beddings, kitchen ware, gas cylinders, gas stoves, ordinary stoves, mats, rugs, furnishings, curtains, carpets, gabbas, namdas, beds, chairs, wooden and steel sofas, sewn suits, suit lengths, cravats, shirts, pulovers, phirans especially newly sewn, saris, pashmina shawls, blankets, footwear, salwar and kameez meant for girls, watches, wall clocks, radio-sets, tv-sets, tape recorders, trunks, briefcases, suit cases, copper ware, brass ware, tea- sets, sewing machines, jewellery and gold ornaments from the homes of the Kashmirian Hindus. It is a loot and open loot reminiscent of tribal societies stunted at the lowest rung of the civilisational ladder. The Muslim plunderers motivated by their acquired tribal traits removed doors, windows, inner wooden ceilings, electric fittings, roofs, sinks, wash basins and geysers from Hindu houses. Copper vessels meant for warming water covered by cement and sunk in bricks were dug out and looted. Water pipes laid underground and over-ground for supply of drinking water to the houses were dug out and savagely looted. The houses already looted and denuded of all house-hold goods by one drove leaving nothing for other droves to loot were vengefully and sadistically damaged by scratching of walls, breaking of window and door fixtures, mirrors fixed in walls, and photographs of dead parents and gods and goddesses hung against walls. The looters motivated by tribal culture removed steel and wooden almirahs and other heavy brass pots in hand-driven carts. The prowlers reducing a civilised society to the lowest ebb openly looted and plundered the Hindu houses not at nights but in broad daylight fearing none as all shared the booty. The Hindu-houses surrounded by the Muslims were not subjected to one swoop, but were denuded of all possessions at a leisurely pace. In such localities loot was organised by women squads owing allegiance to the Dukhtaran-i-Milat. Thc Hindu houses yet standing and not put to flames have been illegally occupied and thus grabbed by the Muslims. The Muslims living in such houses keep on shifling from house to house along with the residual booty they lay their hands on. At the very inception of insurgency, the Hindu houses under the nose of their owners were marked red only for distribution as booty among the faithfuls and as of now are under Muslim occupation revealing the Muslim mind harbouring designs to decimate the Hindus. The Hindu shops throughout the Valley have been looted and plundered or illegally grabbed by the Muslims. The orchards and tracts of cultivable land owned by the Hindus have been grabbed by the Muslim neighbours, selling the produce and thus cornering huge sums, leaving a part of it for the apex body organising the loot and plunder of the Hindu properties. The agriculture commissioner, Mr. Vijay Baqaya in his meet the press programme has reportedly said that orchards belonging to the Hindus are being looked after by their neighbours and relatives. Who are their neighbours ? Who are their relatives ? They are all decaying and eking out existence in the squaldid camps in Jammu and elsewhere. Mr. Baqaya's statement is highly misleading. The fact remains that the Muslim looters have looted and plundered the Hindu properties and grabbed their orchards and cultivable lands. The warning issued by the JKLF terrorists to vacate the Hindu properties is a testimony to the grabbing of their properties by none other than the Muslims. A community harbouring a mere pretence to canons of civilised behaviour cannot even think of looting, plundering and grabbing the properlies of their neighbours. Are there credal canons motivating the Muslim looters to loot and plunder the properties of the Hindus and that too in their absence? The objectivity of the situation cannot deter an independent observer from coming to the conclusion that the looters mark an eclipse of rationality and sanity for a community allowing such an open loot and plunder of their Hindu neighbours whose joys and sorrows it zestfully shared and partook. And there is a Shaha-bu-din still drawing comfort from a non-fact that the fleeing Hindus handed over the keys of their houses to their Muslim neighbours. The looted properties from the Hindu homes were openly sold and auctioned. And there were buyers all available for them. The booty was openly sold to the buyers at throw-away prices. What is amazing that no rational Muslim motivated by human sensibilities could raise his voice in protest against the sale of booty establishing it as a throw-back proclivity to the abysmal levels of tribal barbarity. For a tribal booty is sweet and its sale is sweeter. The 'ethnic cleansing' remains incomplete if the roots of the Kashmirian Hindus are not decimated and destroyed and roots remain embedded in the houses as expressions of human personality. The Muslim terrorists and their accomplices have been relentless in destroying the houses belonging to the Kashmirian Hindus. Such ten thousand houses have been cruelly set ablaze till date. A detailed catalogue of gutted houses bearing locations and FIRs was submitted lo the erstwhile Home Minister of India, M.M. Jacob, who could not doubt the authenticity of it as it was replete with and supported by all relevant details and descriptions. The terrorists are vengefully burning the Hindu houses with a view to reducing the Kashmirian Hindus to the status of nomads, destroying their roots and moorings and sealing all opportunities of their return to their native land. Their communal motivations become discernibly clear that they have not burnt a single house belonging to the Muslims who have migrated to various parts of India for lucrative business and sabotage. A squad leaving the precincts of a mosque on a burning spree is followed by another squad only to remove doors and windows, logs and planks of wood, stones and bricks and other building materials for building their structures with the looted booty or get money by putting them to sale. The grand old house of Dr. Brij Bihari Kachru, a renowned linguist working in the University of Illinios, USA was set ablaze and continued to be burning for days on end. The house was burning and loot was going on. The looters were elated and extremely gaga that they could lay their hands on most modern gadgets and sophisticated devices. Arson and loot as ingredients of an ethos appear astounding to men of culture and civilised upbringing. Burning of Books and Temples Of Learning --------------------------------------------- The looters breaking into the Hindu homes were extremely amazed to find piles of books and manuscripts stocked in them. In their utter bigotry and vitriolic wrath, the books were either stolen or torn or burnt. The libraries owned by prominent Hindu lawyers in towns and cities were looted and plundered whole hog. Their loot was allegedly organised bv their rivals in the profession. A Muslim with pretensions of being an artist organised Muslim terrorists to loot the brilliant sketches of priceless value from the house of a young Hindu artist, who had died much before the rise of terrorism in Kashmir. Heaps of books were torn and the mutilated pages scattered over the rooms and compounds of the ravaged houses. Medical books looted from Hindu houses were sold off for petty sums to the Muslim retailers, who convert their pages into cones to be stuffed with small quantities of tea, salt, spices et al. The works of Karl Marx, Engels, Hindu classics on religion and philosophy, Rajtaranginis and other magnum opuses were ruthlessly torn or burnt underpinning absolute contempt for books as repositories of knowledge and learning. The Muslim terrorists, mostly drop-outs, kalbafs (weavers), bakers, vegetable-sellers, milk-men, butchers, domestic servants, plumbers, shoe shines et al have consistently worked to the end of pushing Kashmir into DarkAges and their wild onslaught coupled with high-pitched hatred is against books and all levels of educational institutions as temples of learning. The entire network of Hindu institutions established by the Hindu visionaries has been mercilessly destroyed along with the precious collections of manuscripts in Sharda Script in such institutions. The entire complex of Vishwa Bharti Institution established and manned by the Hindu minority was first blasted and then torched. The Rupa Devi Shardapeeth established by a Hindu scholar and philanthropist was set ablaze by the Muslim vandals. The institution had a rare collection of Sanskrit manuscripts, which were destroyed, thus inflicting an incalculable damage on the cultural history of Kashmir. The Vassanta Girls High School as the first institution serving the educational needs of women of all hues was set to fire by the Muslim marauders with all vengefulness. The Gandhi Memorial College as a minority institutiion was ravaged and set ablaze for the nomenclature it bore. The D. A. V. Higher Secondary School, Rainawari, Srinagar serving as a tower of learning and enlightenment was put to fire by the Muslim Boors. The Muslim philistines have sadistically relished the total decimation of infrastructure for manpower development laid out in post-1947 era. With a view to focussing on the Muslim abhorrence of knowledge and scholarship, it will be pertinent to allude to the demonstrations in Srinagar against a tome titled as Book Of Knowledge authored by a European scholar. The Muslim termed the book as blasphemous and that was sufficient for the book to be banned. The goons in the demonstration catching hold of a French, urinating in a lonely corner, yelled to ban 'Book of Knowledge' and lashed his hands and bare legs with prickly nettles and pat came the reply from the Frenchman, 'Why ban Book of Knowledge only, ban all knowledge.' The prophetic words of the Frenchman have come true as the Muslim terrorists sunk in abysmal depths of ignorance and backwardness operating under the over-all command of Afghan, Libyan, Kuwaiti, Pakistani and Saudi Arabian mercenaries have burnt temples of learning with impunity thus depriving the Kashmirians of having a brush with knowledge and learning. The terrorist fiat of 'no discussion' smacking of Muslim fascism has led to the drowning of all vestiges of rational thinking in the Muslims, who are driven as a flock by the ISI subversives and criminals and foreign boors reducing them to the condition of one dimensional, inert, stunted and brain washed individuals. Notes and References ---------------------- 1. Islamic Fundamentelism in Kashmir, O. N. Trisal, convenor Save Kashmiri Pandit Campaign Committee, New Delhi. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid 4. Ibid. 5. Parliamentary Debates. ***************************************** Next Time: Terrible Plight of Minorities ***************************************** Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 9 16:41:45 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 11:41:45 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609114411.24bfde22@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Long Message I just posted a message about a theosophist who was murdered. Until after the posting I did not realize it was a very long one. Apologies to everyone. Mk Ramadoss Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 9 16:50:45 1996 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 11:50:45 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609115311.1b1770a4@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Book List - Theosophy In the usenet, I found the following posted by Daniel. I think it is an excellent list and many newbees my like it. We can also print it and give to any enquirers. Keep up the good work, Daniel! MK Ramadoss ITLE>H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY: Recommended Reading---A Core Library

H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY: Recommended Reading---A Core Library

From           blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky
Foundation)
Organization   Arizona Daily Star - AZSTARNET
Date           Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:18:29 LOCAL
Keywords       blavatsky, theosophy,
occultism, occult, metaphysical, metaphysics, esotericism, esoteric, new age
Newsgroups     talk.religion.newage
Message-ID     <blafoun.252.00394338@azstarnet.com>


*************************************************************

H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY:
RECOMMENDED READING
A Core Library

(All books are currently in print as of 5/96.
Please e-mail or write to us for price and
ordering information.  We will gladly suggest
a course of reading.)

*************************************************************

Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell
Issued by The Blavatsky Foundation
P.O. Box 1844, Tucson, AZ 85702, U.S.A.
blafoun@azstarnet.com

************************************************************

"Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...[is]...the most insightful
and comprehensive teacher of esoteric philosophy in
modern times...."   Shirley Nicholson.  Ancient Wisdom,
Modern Insight.  1985.

"...Madame Blavatsky...stands out as the fountainhead
of modern occult thought...."  J. Gordon Melton, Jerome
Clark and Aidan A. Kelly.  New Age Almanac.  1991.

"Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...is surely among the most
original and perceptive minds of her time....[In her two
major books]....lies...the first philosophy of psychic and
spiritual evolution to appear in the modern West...."
Theodore Roszak.  The Unfinished Animal.  1975.

"H.P. Blavatsky...is regarded by all modern theosophical
movements as the most important theosophical writer
and teacher of the modern era."  Robert Ellwood, author
of Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America,
Alternative Altars and other works.

************************************************************
____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 1:  An Introduction to the Life and Influence of Madame
Blavatsky

(1)     When Daylight Comes:  Biography of Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky.  By Howard Murphet.

(2)     The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky:  Reminiscences
And Impressions by Those Who Knew Her.  Compiled and edited
by Daniel H. Caldwell

(3)     H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine":  Commentaries on
Her Contributions to World Thought.  Edited by Virginia Hanson.

(4)     HPB:  The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena
Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement.
By Sylvia Cranston.

(5)     The Real H.P. Blavatsky:  A Study of Theosophy, and a
Memoir of a Great Soul.  By William Kingsland.

_____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 2:  An Introduction to Theosophy

(6)     An Introduction to Esoteric Principles:  A Study Guide.  By
William Doss McDavid.

(7)     Deity, Cosmos and Man:  An Outline of Esoteric Science.  By
Geoffrey A. Farthing.

(8)     Ancient Wisdom---Modern Insight.  By Shirley Nicholson.

(9)     The Divine Plan:  Written in the Form of a Commentary on
H.P. Blavatsky's  "Secret Doctrine."  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 3:  An Classical Introduction to Theosophy

(10)    An Invitation to "The Secret Doctrine."  By H.P. Blavatsky.
TUP.

(11)    The Occult World.  By A.P. Sinnett.  TPH edition.

(12)    Esoteric Buddhism.  By A.P. Sinnett. Wizards Bookshelf
edition.

(13)    The Key to Theosophy.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  With
Glossary.
TPH edition.

(14)    Spiritual Evolution:  Articles by H.P. Blavatsky.  TC

(15)    Teachers and Disciples:  Articles by H.P. Blavatsky.  TC

(16)    The Voice of The Silence:  Being Chosen Fragments from the
"Book of The Golden Precepts"  for the Daily Use of Lanoos
(Disciples).  Translated  and Annotated by "H.P.B."  TUP edition.

(17)    Reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine."
By Countess Constance Wachtmeister and others.

(18)    An Abridgement of "The Secret Doctrine." By H.P. Blavatsky.
Edited by Elizabeth Preston and Christmas Humphreys.

(19)    H.P. Blavatsky Teaches:  An Anthology.  Compiled by Michael
Gomes.

_______________________________________________________
Bookshelf 4:  Others Studies on Theosophy

(20)     An Inquiry into the Nature of Mind.  By Adam Warcup.

(21)    Exploring the Great Beyond:  A Survey of the Field of the
Extraordinary. By Geoffrey A. Farthing.

(22)    When We Die:  A Description of the After-Death States and
Processes. By Geoffrey A. Farthing.  PLP.

(23)    Reincarnation:  A New Horizon in Science, Religion and
Society.  By Sylvia  Cranston and Carey Williams.  TUP.

(24)    Reincarnation, the Phoenix Fire Mystery:  An East-West
Dialogue on Death, and Rebirth from the Worlds of Religion, Science,
Psychology, Philosophy, Art, and Literature, and from Great Thinkers
of the Past and Present. Compiled and Edited by Joseph Head and
S.L. Cranston.  TUP.

(25)    Concentration and Meditation:  A Manual of Mind Development.
By Christmas Humphreys.

(26)    Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures & Universal Mystery
Language of Myth and Symbol.  By Henry Travers Edge.  PLP.

(27)    The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scriptures.  By
William Kingsland.

(28)    The Cosmic Womb:  An Interpretation of Man's Relationship to
the Infinite.  By Arthur W. Osborn.

(29)    The Divine Plan by Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(30)    Man, The Measure of All Things:  In the Stanzas of Dzyan.  By
Sri Krishna Prem and Sri Madhava Ashish.

(31)     Man, God and the Universe.  By I.K. Taimni.

(32)    The Mathematics of the Cosmic Mind:  A Study in Mathematical
Symbolism.  by L. Gordon Plummer.

(33)    Cyclic Evolution:  A Theosophical View.  By Adam Warcup.

(34)    Archaic History of the Human Race:  As Recorded in "The
Secret Doctrine" By H.P. Blavatsky.  By Gertrude W. van Pelt.
PLP.

(35)    The Peopling of the Earth.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(36)    The Story of Human Evolution.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(37)    The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement.  By Michael
Gomes.

(38)    H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(39)    The Hall of Magic Mirrors.  By Victor A. Endersby.

(40)    Obituary:  The "Hodgson Report " on Madame Blavatsky:
Re-Examination Discredits the Major Charges Against H.P.
Blavatsky.  By Adlai W. Waterman.  BF.

(41)    Theosophy:  A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom.  By
Alvin
Boyd Kuhn.

(42)    Masters and Men:  The Human Story in The Mahatma Letters.
By Virginia Hanson.

(43)    The Mahatmas and Their Letters.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(44)    The Readers Guide to "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett."
Compiled and Edited by George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson.
Second edition.

____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 5:  A Selection of Writings by H.P. Blavatsky and the
Mahatmas


(45)    Isis Unveiled.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TC Facsimile of the
Original Edition.  2 volumes bound in one volume.

(46)    Isis Unveiled.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  Edited by Boris de
Zirkoff.  TPH edition.  2 volumes.

(47)    The Secret Doctrine.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TUP Facsimile
of the Original Edition.  2 volumes.

(48)    Index to "The Secret Doctrine."  TC.

(49)    The Secret Doctrine.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  Edited by Boris de
Zirkoff.  TPH edition.  3 volumes.  Volume 3 is an index volume.

(50)    The Key to Theosophy.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  With
Glossary.
TUP edition.

(51)    The Voice of the Silence.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TUP edition.
Also available as a cassette.

(52)    The Voice of the Silence.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  With
Historical Introduction and Index by Boris de Zirkoff.  TPH edition.

(53)    Secret Doctrine Commentary, Stanzas I-IV:  Transactions
of the Blavatsky Lodge.  By  H.P. Blavatsky.  TUP edition.

(54)    The Theosophical Glossary.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TC edition.

(55)    "The Esoteric Instructions."  By H.P. Blavatsky. TPH,
Collected Writings, Vol. 12

(56)    The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky.  Second edition.
PLP

(57)    Theosophical Articles.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  3 volumes.  TC.

(58)    A Modern Panarion:  A Collection of Fugitive Fragments from
the Pen of H.P. Blavatsky.  TC

(59)    The Collected Writings.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  Compiled and
Edited by By Boris de Zirkoff.  15 volumes.  Vol. 14 is an index
volume.  TPH.

(60)    The New Testament Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky.
Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg.  PLP

(61)    The Vedanta Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky.  Compiled
and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg.  PLP

(62)    H.P. Blavatsky on the Gnostics.  Compiled and Annotated
by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP

(63)    The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky.  Compiled and annotated
by H.J. Spierenburg.  PLP

(64)    Glyphs and Symbols.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  CGP

(65)    The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett.
Compiled by A. Trevor Barker.  TUP

(66)    H.P.B. Speaks.  2 volumes.  TPH.

(67)    From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan.  By H.P.
Blavatsky.  TPH

(68)    The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett.  [In
Chronological Sequence].  Arranged and edited by Vicente Hao
Chin, Jr.  [Fourth edition.]  TPH Philippines.

(69)    The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett.  Facsimile of 2nd
Edition.  Paparback.  TUP.

(70)    Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom.  2 volumes.
Transcribed and edited  by C. Jinarajadasa.  TPH.

*****************************************************************
Compiled 5/96
*****************************************************************








	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun  9 19:04:14 1996
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 12:04:14 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960609190414.006ce1ec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

At 11:41 AM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>>Richard Ihle writes>>
>>>John even seems to want to make the ~Theosophical~ in
>>>~The Theosophical Society~ officially stand for just this
>>>definition; Eldon has never actually gone that far, but
>>>one suspects that this development would not disappoint him.
>
>>Eldon writes>
>>I would see a use for a diversity of specializations
>>among theosophical organizations, including one or a
>>few with a -- gasp! -- actual interest in preserving and
>>passing on the source teachings of Theosophy.

Eldon: I think that when one sets out to "preserve and pass on" one runs a
truly awful risk of "crystallizing, setting in stone" and thereby denying
the SPIRIT of the teachings to posterity. It is this that is the great
danger to the theosophical ideal at this time. In any philosophy the worst
fate is the preservation of the "Letter" at the expense of the "Spirit" that
destroys the viability of the structure.- A.D.
>
>R.I.>
>Does an organization based upon THE THREE OBJECTS seem like the natural
>candidate for specialization?

Richard: You're absolutely correct. The Three Objects are a prescription for
almost unrestrained generalism, especially when they are combined with the
Motto. What people like John Algeo, and perhaps Eldon, are doing IMHO, is
turning the motto into the usual "There's no truth higher than my
religion".- A.D.
>
>Anyway, I do not believe that an ever-shrinking Society made up of experts on
>the source teachings, semi-experts, and some confused people who think they
>might want to be experts someday will help preserve or pass along HPB's
>writings.  In my opinion, the genius of the Founders' original plan ~must~ be
>understood and followed--viz., attract a large number of Truth-seekers and a
>certain "elite" percentage will naturally start gravitating toward HPB's
>writings.  The "HPB percentage" is never likely to change; the actual number
>it represents can only grow when more general Truth-seekers are attracted.

If I may, I'd like to say that Boris de Zirkoff has already done the
definitive job of preserving HPB's writings. What mustn't be done is their
iconization. She wrote for her time in the semantics and context of her
time. Today we are five years short of the beginning of a new century, time
changes, context changes, and semantics change. I repeat it is the spirit of
HPB's ideas that must be preserved and passed on, it's substance NOT its
form. That's what I've been talking about all along when I complain about
"Hassidic Theosophy" by which I mean to say a religious approach totally
oblivious to changes outside of its too rigid parameters. I am also fearful
lest in preserving every word of Blavatsky's in stone, we fail to ascertain
what she actually said and what others put into her mouth post-mortem. -A.D.
>
>I would not even object to the E.S.'s continuing control over the general
>Society if only they had some grasp on the original organizational idea and
>the forebearance and finesse to keep it in proper operation.  You, Jerry S.,
>and John Algeo are not the first to come up with the idea of trying to turn
>the ~entire outer Society~ into a simulacrum of the inner Society by means of
>further defining the doctrines that the outer is to be officially associated
>with.

I have to say I do. In my experience, the Pasadena society, in which James
Long was courageous enough to shut the E.S> down is a group that is far
freer, and far more devoted to the three objects than either the TSA or the
TS(Adyar). The electoral "hankypanky" that has poor Doss so rightfully
distraught is a product of the E.S. "Inner" and "Outer" societies are hardly
a hallmark of the coming century. That may have been O.K. in Queen
Victoria's time (or Edward VII's for that matter) but it no longer suits our
society. It clearly repels the young. The tail mustn't wag the dog. In this
case the "tail" desperately needs cropping. If the T.S. is to survive, the
E.S. needs to be disbanded. - A.D.
>
>At this stage in its history, the Theosophical Society should almost be
>synonymous with general Truth-seeking of a spiritual and metaphysical nature.
> It is not.  Thank you, certain present and former members, for you have now
>almost won your great battle to purge the Society of the little ~t~
>theosophists.  All the little t's wanted was to belong to a Society which
>championed the validity of theosophical ~epistemology~--i.e., the idea that
>valid knowledge is possible by transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight
>or higher perception--and the idea of the personal Quest, wherever it might
>lead.  Now, as you are preparing to give the little t's their hats and coats
>and politely explain that the T.S. is really not meant to be as general as
>that, where will you suggest that they go--the Unitarians?

Well one would hope they'd not go to the Unitarians. What they'll probably
do is go to some new context (for example theosophy international) and the
small "t" theosophical movement will continue on its generalist "three
objects' path, while big "T" Theosophy will live precisely as long as the
big "T" theosophists do. AS it stands right now, I'd be very surprised if
the Adyar based society lasts out the century.
>
>Indeed, as if it were not bad enough that you, certain present and former
>members, have almost succeeded in making the term ~Theosophy~ stand
>specifically for (or "be consistent with") HPB's understanding and
>articulations of the doctrines, you also want to make the very name of the
>Society officially ~stand for~ these doctrinal articulations as well.  You
>want all foreheads clearly stamped with ~T = HPB~ before they enter the Tent.
> Paradoxically, the doctrines in question are my primary interests as well;
>however, my forehead is stamped with ~t = I'll See~.

Mine too Richard and there are many such. - A.D.
>
>Let me hasten to say, Eldon, that I do not believe you and Jerry S. have the
>full-coagulating attitude which may well ultimately be responsible for the
>demise of the Society.  (At this point, the Society's will-to-clot seems so
>inexorable that perhaps only direct intervention of the Masters can get it
>back on track toward becoming the pre-eminent organization for the type of
>Truth-seeker who is willing to consider the validity of theosophically based
>knowledge.)   I am more-so thinking of others at the moment. . . .

Question: would the "Masters" not have to have a motive for "raising the dead"?
 Does big "T" Theosophy give them a motive? I doubt it. - A.D.
>
>For example, those responsible for the possible passing of QUEST MAGAZINE.
> Is it really the money issue, or is it that the publication has too much of
>the traditional outer-Society, little ~t~ orientation for the liking of
>certain individuals?  The Fog Index has been offered as another explanation.
> Yes, it might have been hard for some people to read, I agree; however,
>compared with the subjects that you, Jerry S., and many others want to more
>strictly identify as ~Theosophy~, QUEST may possibly live in people's
>memories as having had the reading ease of a tabloid.  Extended discourses on
>swabhava, the mechanisms of Devachan, etc.:  these will have to be analyzed
>with the new Fog-on-Fog Index. . . .
>
>Sometimes I cannot help but wonder whether the Theosophy-really-means-this
>people really want thousands of new, freely Questing people for the Society,
>or whether they just want a relatively few more individuals in
>student-bondage to themselves.  Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but have
>you noticed that many of those who want a strict doctrinal definition of
>~Theosophy~ often include primarily those subjects they themselves are expert
>in?  If you defined Theosophy, I would have to show up at your feet to learn
>what it is; if I defined it . . . well, you could give me a shine while I
>pontificated. . . .

Unless I am totally wrong the idea of "showing up to learn at someone's
feet" would make HPB nauseous. Just as it obviously nauseates you.- A.D.
>
>Eldon writes>
>>I think that Jerry S. is indicating that there is something
>>to the theosophical ideas themselves. Perhaps he recognizes
>>that there are definite doctrines to be written about and
>>presented to the new student, and that there's more to
>>Theosophy than a seeker's club where people compare opinions
>>but have nothing to come together to study apart from
>>playing "show and tell".

There's a very great deal of value in theosophical IDEAS, but when ideas are
totally encapsulated in orthodoxy and become an insensible repetition of
WORDS then the ideas wither away and die, lost entirely in form rather than
substance.
>
>Richard Ihle writes>
>If Theosophy (the org.) truely became a seeker's club, there would be a great
>renaissance.  Right now it seems moving in the direction of becoming even
>more of a speaker's club for the approved and a sleeper's club for the rest.

Richard's words are very very true.-Alexis Dolgorukii.
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Richard Ihle
>
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun  9 19:07:06 1996
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 12:07:06 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960609190706.006a69e0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: egregores

At 11:41 AM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>No, a golem, at least traditionally, was a physical thing rather than a
>purely psychic one.  Now even that is changing with the work of a woman in
>New Orleans, whose name I can never remember, who has created a statue that
>acts as a focus for necrotic energy that she calls her Golem.
>
>Chuck MTI, FTSA
>
>Interesting, that is a major difference, I hadn't been aware that an
egregore was purely psychic.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun  9 19:25:05 1996
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 12:25:05 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960609192505.006b8c78@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do?

At 12:25 PM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 11:41 AM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Alex,
>>Judging from Alan's postings, Rudy was still in TI, so I guess he is still
>>speaking to Alan even though the rest of us are cast into outer darkness.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>
>Chuck: I recently sent a msg to him re adyar e-mail and got a quick reply.
>Have any of you sent him e-mail recently?
>
>
>	Peace to all living beings.
>
>	M K Ramadoss
>
>
>Yes, I did, and I too, got asn immediate answer. Going to see the for
dinner soon.

alexis

From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun  9 19:49:47 1996
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 14:49:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960609145213.26afdee0@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Theos-l Statistics


Hi:
I have compiled some statistics on the subscribers to theos-l. There is
world wide representation totalling 20 countries.

Australia	2
Belgium		1
Brazil		2
Canada		3
Denmark		1
Finland		3
Iceland		1
Iran		1
Italy		1
Japan		3
Korea (South)	1
Netherlands	2
New Zealand	1
Russian Fedn	1
Singapore	1
Slovenia	1
Turkey		1
UK		2
USA		53
Venezuela	1

Note: In the USA is included whose address does not identify a foreign
country. This is the case with providers like AOL, compuserve etc.



	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 10 00:06:18 1996
Date: 09 Jun 96 20:06:18 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Wolf-Trap Three
Message-Id: <960610000618_76400.1474_HHL73-1@CompuServe.COM>

RI:
>I am trying to work this T/theosophy thing so I can rise above everyone else
>who is trying to work it.
	How about letting T be a specifically defined subset of t?
In other words, T is exoteric doctrine, and t is esoteric experience.


>Trust me.  The problem is insurmountable.  Where a semi-Self
> ("ego-formation") is found at all, I can assure you that it will be fighting
>to establish its own particular ~I-AM-such-and-such~ as dominant over
>everyone else's similar ~I-AM-such-and-such~. If that superordination cannot
>be accomplished, the semi-Self disappears and another semi-Self tries its
>luck.
	Such is the nature of hierarchies.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI




From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 10 00:06:27 1996
Date: 09 Jun 96 20:06:27 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term
Message-Id: <960610000626_76400.1474_HHL73-2@CompuServe.COM>

RI:
>...attract a large number of Truth-seekers and a
>certain "elite" percentage will naturally start gravitating toward HPB's
>writings.  The "HPB percentage" is never likely to change; the actual number
>it represents can only grow when more general Truth-seekers are attracted.
	I would love to see Theosophy become a haven for
"truth-seekers."  It has always attracted these folk, but has never
seemed to be able to hold them for long.  The problem?  In a word,
technique.  When a valid truth-seeker learns that the acceptable
techniques are karma-yoga, altruism, jnana-yoga, and perhaps a dab of
raja-yoga, they soon leave.  Jnana-yoga is basically reading and
studying, and what you wind up with is a intellectual reading society.
Karma-yoga and altruism are not valid techniques IMHO, but rather
what we should be doing as a matter of course.  Raja-yoga is fine,
but again not terribly efficient or effective for most.  Magic and real
occultism are forbidden.  The 3rd Objective is talked about through
the writings already given us, and new material and research are
discouraged.  So, what are these truth-seekers supposed to do?
What has been happening so far is that theosophists who stay
tend to read and study a lot.  This is fine for Eldon's intellectual-
spiritual approach, but it only attracts a certain type of person,
and leaves many others out.

>At this stage in its history, the Theosophical Society should almost be
>synonymous with general Truth-seeking of a spiritual and metaphysical
>nature.   It is not.
	Yes it should, and no it is not, and for the reasons I gave
above.  Perhaps we can get Eldon to expound on the intellectual-
spiritual approach in some detail?  The bottom line here is that if
we want to attract, and keep, truth-seekers, then we have to give
them more than books to read.


> All the little t's wanted was to belong to a Society which
>championed the validity of theosophical ~epistemology~--i.e., the idea that
>valid knowledge is possible by transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight
>or higher perception--and the idea of the personal Quest, wherever it might
>lead.
	The problem with this is that it smacks of psychism, the dreaded
p word.  How are members to know if  you are drawing your information
from "higher" insight, or from kama-manas?  The obvious answer here
is that, by definition, "higher" insight will agree with HPB and the MLs,
and anything that differs must be psychism.  I have played this little game
too many times, and am tired of it.  I agree with you, Richard, but I am
tired of fighting the establishment.  The party line is that everyone's
insight must agree with the TS literature, and if so, then why bother to
channel or use intuition, when the information is already written down
for us?  So, we're back to reading and studying again.

> Now, as you are preparing to give the little t's their hats and coats
>and politely explain that the T.S. is really not meant to be as general as
>that, where will you suggest that they go--the Unitarians?
	Personally, I have never felt that little t's were welcome.
I do most of my own truth-seeking in Magic and Occult circles,
not in the TSs.  As I have said before, the TSs provide a lot of
worthwhile background and theoretical material in their libraries.
But we have to look elsewhere for practical application and
direct experience.  There are doubtless a few people like Eldon
who can do very well with an intellectual-spiritual approach.  But
this path is not for everyone.  I know that for myself, I feel the
need to experience the ideas, not just to think about them.

>Let me hasten to say, Eldon, that I do not believe you and Jerry S. have the
>full-coagulating attitude which may well ultimately be responsible for the
>demise of the Society.
	If the society dies, I will have a clear conscience, Richard.

>For example, those responsible for the possible passing of QUEST MAGAZINE.
> Is it really the money issue, or is it that the publication has too much of
>the traditional outer-Society, little ~t~ orientation for the liking of
>certain individuals?
	The little t aspect of Quest was its best aspect.


>The Fog Index has been offered as another explanation.
	IMHO this is what killed it.

> Yes, it might have been hard for some people to read, I agree; however,
>compared with the subjects that you, Jerry S., and many others want to more
>strictly identify as ~Theosophy~, QUEST may possibly live in people's
>memories as having had the reading ease of a tabloid.  Extended discourses on
>swabhava, the mechanisms of Devachan, etc.:  these will have to be analyzed
>with the new Fog-on-Fog Index. . .
	Different audiences, Richard.  Eldon and I, and Jerry HE, and others
who discuss detailed material are doing it for each other as long-standing
members.  If the Quest had articles about Rounds, Globes, Swabhava,
and so on, it would have died long ago.  One must write for one's audience,
and the Quest audience (the general public)  has a 7th grade reading level.

>Sometimes I cannot help but wonder whether the Theosophy-really-means-this
>people really want thousands of new, freely Questing people for the Society,
>or whether they just want a relatively few more individuals in
>student-bondage to themselves.
	What I want is a Theosophy-means-this, as a small subset
of theosophy, however you want define little t theosophy (I like your
definition just fine, but only for t, not T).

> If you defined Theosophy, I would have to show up at your feet to learn
>what it is;
	I don't see it ever going that far.  Why come to my feet
to learn what reincarnation or karma are?  They are already defined
in the literature.  I have tried to define them as I experience them,
and this is different, a bit, from the exoteric defintions in the literature.
For my efforts, I have caught flack and flame, and had to grow a
thicker skin.  But I keep on trying.

>Richard Ihle writes>
>If Theosophy (the org.) truely became a seeker's club, there would be a great
>renaissance.  Right now it seems moving in the direction of becoming even
>more of a speaker's club for the approved and a sleeper's club for the rest.
	What is the difference between a "seekers club" and the infamous
"halls of magic" that HPB warns us against?  If you mean intellectual
seeking, then we already are.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Jun 10 01:19:57 1996
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 19:19:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term
In-Reply-To: <960610000626_76400.1474_HHL73-2@CompuServe.COM>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote:

> Magic and real
> occultism are forbidden.  The 3rd Objective is talked about through
> the writings already given us, and new material and research are
> discouraged.
	While I was using a couple of Web search engines to find
"Theosophy", I inadvertantly stumbled across something called _Theosophy:
A Portrait_, by (you guessed it) "John Algeo: President of the
Theosophical Society in America". It is a thirteen page discourse,
apparently designed to inform people who have never heard of the TS
(e.g., it starts by saying the TS was formed by HPB, HSO, & WQJ in New
york, etc., etc.). Algeo is writing here, notice, in his official role as
President.
	The actual *Objects* are not mentioned until the fourth page, and
are discussed thus:
	"The first object of the Theosophical Society is (in one
wording), "To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity
without distinction of race, creed, sex caste, or color" and the second
is "To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and
science". As those objects indicate, Theosophy is dedicated to increasing
cooperation among human beings and understanding among their cultures and
religions."

	That's right folks, *THE THIRD OBJECT HAS DISAPPEARED*! It is
mentioned *nowhere in the entire piece*.
	Just who the *hell* does this guy think he is?
						       Lividly, -JRC

[PS. For those who have browsers, the article can be found at:
	http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr155
From blafoun@azstarnet.com Mon Jun 10 01:26:14 1996
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 18:26:14 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606100126.SAA13688@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY:  RECOMMENDED READING

Thanks, Ramadoss for posting my book list on theos-l.  I am
posting another copy that doesn't have those "strong" terms
attached to various words.  Of course, the focus of the
bib is "Blavatsky".
Daniel



*************************************************************

H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY:
RECOMMENDED READING
A Core Library

(All books are currently in print as of 5/96.
Please e-mail or write to us for price and
ordering information.)

*************************************************************

Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell
Issued by The Blavatsky Foundation
P.O. Box 1844, Tucson, AZ 85702, U.S.A.
blafoun@azstarnet.com

************************************************************

"Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...[is]...the most insightful
and comprehensive teacher of esoteric philosophy in
modern times...."   Shirley Nicholson.  Ancient Wisdom,
Modern Insight.  1985.

"...Madame Blavatsky...stands out as the fountainhead
of modern occult thought...."  J. Gordon Melton, Jerome
Clark and Aidan A. Kelly.  New Age Almanac.  1991.

"Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...is surely among the most
original and perceptive minds of her time....[In her two
major books]....lies...the first philosophy of psychic and
spiritual evolution to appear in the modern West...."
Theodore Roszak.  The Unfinished Animal.  1975.

"H.P. Blavatsky...is regarded by all modern theosophical
movements as the most important theosophical writer
and teacher of the modern era."  Robert Ellwood, author
of Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America,
Alternative Altars and other works.

************************************************************
____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 1:  An Introduction to the Life and Influence of Madame
Blavatsky

(1)     When Daylight Comes:  Biography of Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky.  By Howard Murphet.

(2)     The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky:  Reminiscences
And Impressions by Those Who Knew Her.  Compiled and edited
by Daniel H. Caldwell

(3)     H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine":  Commentaries on
Her Contributions to World Thought.  Edited by Virginia Hanson.

(4)     HPB:  The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena
Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement.
By Sylvia Cranston.

(5)     The Real H.P. Blavatsky:  A Study of Theosophy, and a
Memoir of a Great Soul.  By William Kingsland.

_____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 2:  An Introduction to Theosophy

(6)     An Introduction to Esoteric Principles:  A Study Guide.  By
William Doss McDavid.

(7)     Deity, Cosmos and Man:  An Outline of Esoteric Science.  By
Geoffrey A. Farthing.

(8)     Ancient Wisdom---Modern Insight.  By Shirley Nicholson.

(9)     The Divine Plan:  Written in the Form of a Commentary on
H.P. Blavatsky's  "Secret Doctrine."  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 3:  An Classical Introduction to Theosophy

(10)    An Invitation to "The Secret Doctrine."  By H.P. Blavatsky.
TUP.

(11)    The Occult World.  By A.P. Sinnett.  TPH edition.

(12)    Esoteric Buddhism.  By A.P. Sinnett. Wizards Bookshelf
edition.

(13)    The Key to Theosophy.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  With Glossary.
TPH edition.

(14)    Spiritual Evolution:  Articles by H.P. Blavatsky.  TC

(15)    Teachers and Disciples:  Articles by H.P. Blavatsky.  TC

(16)    The Voice of The Silence:  Being Chosen Fragments from the
"Book of The Golden Precepts"  for the Daily Use of Lanoos
(Disciples).  Translated  and Annotated by "H.P.B."  TUP edition.

(17)    Reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine."
By Countess Constance Wachtmeister and others.

(18)    An Abridgement of "The Secret Doctrine." By H.P. Blavatsky.
Edited by Elizabeth Preston and Christmas Humphreys.

(19)    H.P. Blavatsky Teaches:  An Anthology.  Compiled by Michael
Gomes.

_______________________________________________________
Bookshelf 4:  Others Studies on Theosophy

(20)     An Inquiry into the Nature of Mind.  By Adam Warcup.

(21)    Exploring the Great Beyond:  A Survey of the Field of the
Extraordinary. By Geoffrey A. Farthing.

(22)    When We Die:  A Description of the After-Death States and
Processes. By Geoffrey A. Farthing.  PLP.

(23)    Reincarnation:  A New Horizon in Science, Religion and
Society.  By Sylvia  Cranston and Carey Williams.  TUP.

(24)    Reincarnation, the Phoenix Fire Mystery:  An East-West
Dialogue on Death, and Rebirth from the Worlds of Religion, Science,
Psychology, Philosophy, Art, and Literature, and from Great Thinkers
of the Past and Present. Compiled and Edited by Joseph Head and
S.L. Cranston.  TUP.

(25)    Concentration and Meditation:  A Manual of Mind Development.
By Christmas Humphreys.

(26)    Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures & Universal Mystery
Language of Myth and Symbol.  By Henry Travers Edge.  PLP.

(27)    The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scriptures.  By
William Kingsland.

(28)    The Cosmic Womb:  An Interpretation of Man's Relationship to
the Infinite.  By Arthur W. Osborn.

(29)    The Divine Plan by Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(30)    Man, The Measure of All Things:  In the Stanzas of Dzyan.  By
Sri Krishna Prem and Sri Madhava Ashish.

(31)     Man, God and the Universe.  By I.K. Taimni.

(32)    The Mathematics of the Cosmic Mind:  A Study in Mathematical
Symbolism.  by L. Gordon Plummer.

(33)    Cyclic Evolution:  A Theosophical View.  By Adam Warcup.

(34)    Archaic History of the Human Race:  As Recorded in "The
Secret Doctrine" By H.P. Blavatsky.  By Gertrude W. van Pelt.
PLP.

(35)    The Peopling of the Earth.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(36)    The Story of Human Evolution.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(37)    The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement.  By Michael
Gomes.

(38)    H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(39)    The Hall of Magic Mirrors.  By Victor A. Endersby.

(40)    Obituary:  The "Hodgson Report " on Madame Blavatsky:
Re-Examination Discredits the Major Charges Against H.P.
Blavatsky.  By Adlai W. Waterman.  BF.

(41)    Theosophy:  A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom.  By Alvin
Boyd Kuhn.

(42)    Masters and Men:  The Human Story in The Mahatma Letters.
By Virginia Hanson.

(43)    The Mahatmas and Their Letters.  By Geoffrey A. Barborka.

(44)    The Readers Guide to "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett."
Compiled and Edited by George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson.
Second edition.

____________________________________________________
Bookshelf 5:  A Selection of Writings by H.P. Blavatsky and the
Mahatmas


(45)    Isis Unveiled.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TC Facsimile of the
Original Edition.  2 volumes bound in one volume.

(46)    Isis Unveiled.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  Edited by Boris de
Zirkoff.  TPH edition.  2 volumes.

(47)    The Secret Doctrine.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TUP Facsimile
of the Original Edition.  2 volumes.

(48)    Index to "The Secret Doctrine."  TC.

(49)    The Secret Doctrine.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  Edited by Boris de
Zirkoff.  TPH edition.  3 volumes.  Volume 3 is an index volume.

(50)    The Key to Theosophy.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  With Glossary.
TUP edition.

(51)    The Voice of the Silence.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TUP edition.
Also available as a cassette.

(52)    The Voice of the Silence.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  With
Historical Introduction and Index by Boris de Zirkoff.  TPH edition.

(53)    Secret Doctrine Commentary, Stanzas I-IV:  Transactions
of the Blavatsky Lodge.  By  H.P. Blavatsky.  TUP edition.

(54)    The Theosophical Glossary.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  TC edition.

(55)    "The Esoteric Instructions."  By H.P. Blavatsky. TPH,
Collected Writings, Vol. 12

(56)    The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky.  Second edition.
PLP

(57)    Theosophical Articles.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  3 volumes.  TC.

(58)    A Modern Panarion:  A Collection of Fugitive Fragments from
the Pen of H.P. Blavatsky.  TC

(59)    The Collected Writings.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  Compiled and
Edited by By Boris de Zirkoff.  15 volumes.  Vol. 14 is an index
volume.  TPH.

(60)    The New Testament Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky.
Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg.  PLP

(61)    The Vedanta Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky.  Compiled
and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg.  PLP

(62)    H.P. Blavatsky on the Gnostics.  Compiled and Annotated
by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP

(63)    The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky.  Compiled and annotated
by H.J. Spierenburg.  PLP

(64)    Glyphs and Symbols.  By H.P. Blavatsky.  CGP

(65)    The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett.
Compiled by A. Trevor Barker.  TUP

(66)    H.P.B. Speaks.  2 volumes.  TPH.

(67)    From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan.  By H.P.
Blavatsky.  TPH

(68)    The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett.  [In
Chronological Sequence].  Arranged and edited by Vicente Hao
Chin, Jr.  [Fourth edition.]  TPH Philippines.

(69)    The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett.  Facsimile of 2nd
Edition.  Paparback.  TUP.

(70)    Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom.  2 volumes.
Transcribed and edited  by C. Jinarajadasa.  TPH.

*****************************************************************
Compiled 5/96
*****************************************************************






From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 01:56:19 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 02:56:19 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Theosophy as a Thesaurus?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960609190414.006ce1ec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960609190414.006ce1ec@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>I am also fearful
>lest in preserving every word of Blavatsky's in stone, we fail to ascertain
>what she actually said and what others put into her mouth post-mortem. -A.D.
>>
Quite so.  It is important to preserve her writings *as writings* and
not "holy writ."  One of the great occultists in history, I am told, was
Cornelius Agrippa, who wrote three books on Occult Philosophy.  I read
his work in the 17th century edition in 1956-7.  Some of it is good,
some of it is awful.  There is no Saint Cornelius, and we do not need a
Saint Helena Blavatsky, however much we may respect her and her work.

As you say elswhere, Alexis, some may join Theosophy International
(caps. for name of org.) - maybe Richard Ihle will one day succumb!

All Hail!

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 Jun 10 02:13:50 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 03:13:50 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do?
In-Reply-To: <960609012257_213471786@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960609012257_213471786@emout07.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Alex,
>Judging from Alan's postings, Rudy was still in TI, so I guess he is still
>speaking to Alan even though the rest of us are cast into outer darkness.
>
>Chuck
Last time I looked, the Web page was still (minimally) there.  That's
all.

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 Jun 10 02:16:41 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 03:16:41 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term
In-Reply-To: <960609002237_322585100@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960609002237_322585100@emout08.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com
writes
>Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but have
>you noticed that many of those who want a strict doctrinal definition of
>~Theosophy~ often include primarily those subjects they themselves are expert
>in?  If you defined Theosophy, I would have to show up at your feet to learn
>what it is; if I defined it . . . well, you could give me a shine while I
>pontificated. . . .

Cheeky!

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 Jun 10 02:26:57 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 03:26:57 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960609065626.006ac548@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960609065626.006ac548@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>Until the day before yesterday I
>could reach alt.theosophy and read it but only post to people individually.
>I don't think I ever got a full list of the messages.

Demon Internet takes it, but nothing arrives ... I will post a test
message.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 00:50:05 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 01:50:05 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL01.TXT (The Leadbeater Affair)
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL01.TXT

HISTORY OF THE (ADYAR) THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

THE C.W.LEADBEATER AFFAIR, 1906-1908

AN INTRODUCTION by Alan Bain (c) 1996

In 1906 a former Anglican Clergyman and member of the Society, later to
become prominent in the Liberal Catholic Church, was called before a
committee headed by the President-Founder of the day, Colonel
H.S.Olcott, one of the co-founders of the Society together with Madame
H.P.Blavatsky, W.Q.Judge and others.

The charge against him was twofold: firstly that he taught young boys to
masturbate (then also called "self-abuse") on a regular, sometimes daily
basis, as necessary to their development and to help avoid the
temptations of the flesh in the future with women and "bad men."  In
today's world, such advice might not be regarded with as much horror, if
any, as it was in late Victorian England, and there were those who,
whilst embarrased by such teaching, could see far enough ahead to
understand that, in itself, such advice might not be necessarily a bad
thing.

Among the grounds of complaint however was the fact that he was giving
such teaching to boys placed into his care by a parent or parents with
spiritual motives, but who were not informed of this aspect of his
teaching, and only found out via their children or other informants.

The second and more serious charge was that he encouraged the practice
by boys who had not yet reached an age where they would otherwise have
thought of it for themselves, nor in whom a physical sexual attraction
to girls, women, or "bad men" had begun to develop.

Even more serious was the charge that in the course of his
"instruction," he handled the boys intimately himself.

Leadbeater denied none of the charges - he admitted them.  The committee
which sat to hear them had only, therefore, to decide which course of
action would be best taken in the interest of the welfare and reputation
of the Society.  They could expel him, or in their wisdom, suggest to
him that he resign.  He willingly resigned his membership of the Society
in the interest of the greater good, according to his own account, which
was not disputed.

The affair was not made public at the time, for obvious reasons, and as
the offender had resigned, there seemed little need to do so, not least
perhaps because the more serious aspects of his behaviour would, in
England and elsewhere, possibly or even probably have been grounds for
criminal charges to be brought against him.

With some relief at the avoidance of a potential international scandal
which would have harmed the Society enormously, the T.S. got on with its
business without him.

The calm was to be short-lived, for in 1908, the International
President, Annie Besant, sought his return to the theosophical fold, and
encouraged by supporters of Leadbeater, issued a letter to members
retracting her 1906 condemnation of his behaviour as part of this
campaign, which would become successful.  In the process, however, the
very scandal which the Society had discreetly avoided in 1906, erupted
into the international arena of the T.S., and damage was done which had
lasting effects, many of which plague the Society to this day.

There were to be later scandals surrounding the name of Bishop
Leadbeater, particularly in Australia, and some account of these is
given in "The Elder Brother," a biography of Leadbeater by Gregory
Tillet, published in 1982.

I have chosen to begin this series of historical studies in the country
from which CWL, as he is often referred to, began his career, and which
is also my own homeland.

The article which follows is an account of the reaction to Annie
Besant's actions by members of the British Section of the Theosophical
Society, and is self-explanatory.

Some readers will wonder why I have not begun with the President's
letter mentioned above.  This will become clear in later documents, as
there was also considerable dispute about the veracity and honesty of
some of the claims made in the letter which resulted in the publication
of a number of "open letters" and pamphlets, some of which have become
very scarce.

In the interest of historical research, however, I intend to make Annie
Besant's letter the next article in this series.

For a short time, in 1908, in Chicago, Illinois, a journal dealing
primarily with the details and campaigns within the American Section was
published under the banner of "The Theosophic Voice" which went to only
three issues.  The first of these is available as a 32 page reprint, and
readers can contact me for further information.  For members of
Theosophy International, I will post brief details on theos-buds.

In the meantime, the result of "The Leadbeater Affair" in his own
country can be revealed through the words, published in 1909, of those
who initiated the protest within the British Section - including some
important and respected thesophists of the time - and which now follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Members of the Theosophical Society

THE LEADBEATER CASE.

THE Protest Committee of the British Section appointed at the Caxton
Hall meeting on December 19, 1908, having issued on February 20 last the
following Final Protest Resolutions for signature by members of the
British Section, have now to place on record the result of their appeal
to the Section.

RESOLUTIONS.

THAT WHEREAS, at the last Convention of the British Section of the
Theosophical Society, a Resolution was passed calling upon the President
and General Council of the Society to take such action as would ensure
"that the repudiation by the Society of this pernicious teaching (the
teaching which determined the resignation of Mr. C. W. Leadbeater) may
be unequivocal and final":

AND WHEREAS the President has replied to this Resolution in a printed
Letter to the Members of the Theosophical Society, dated November, 1908,
in which Letter she not merely declines to take any action to free the
Society from any taint of participation in this scandal, but even seeks
to condone Mr. Leadbeater's offence, thereby reversing her own previous
judgment of the matter; and further announces her willingness to welcome
Mr. Leadbeater back to membership in the Society without his repudiation
of the teaching above referred to:

AND WHEREAS the General Council of the Society at its Annual Meeting at
Adyar, in December, 1908, also refused to accept the appeal of the
British Section, and not merely declined to take any action to
repudiate, in the name of the Society, Mr. Leadbeater's teaching of
self-abuse, or to prevent the identification of this teaching with the
Society, but, on the contrary, has taken the very course which will
ensure the opposite effect, and has passed a Resolution stating that,
"there is no reason why Mr. C.W.Leadbeater should not return, if he
wishes, to his place in the Society"; and has thereby reversed the wise
judgment and action of the late President-Founder, Colonel H.S.Olcott:

AND WHEREAS this disastrous policy on the part of the President and
General Council must inevitably result - and indeed, has already
resulted - in the gravest public scandal, and in the association of Mr.
Leadbeater's degrading teachings with the Society itself:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND RESOLVED -

(1) That we, the undersigned Members of the Theosophical Society, desire
to express, in the first instance, our deep regret that the President
and General Council should not merely have refused to take any steps to
free the Society from this grave scandal but should actually have taken
the most effective means to identity it therewith.

(2) That we hereby desire to protest in the strongest possible manner
against this disastrous policy, to which the Society has now been
committed by its highest officials.

(3) That we hereby place on record our deep abhorrence of the gross
sexual practice into which Mr. Leadbeater - on his own confession - was
guilty of initiating certain boys.

(4) That we desire to express our conviction that the question at issue
is simply one of morality, but that it has been largely obscured by a
false glamour of so-called "occultism" and a specious appeal to so-
called "liberty of opinion."

(5) That we do not feel called upon to judge Mr. Leadbeater's motives,
nor do we condemn any who, in this matter, have honestly thought that
his further identification with the Society was desirable; but we
protest most strongly against the good name of the Society being
sacrificed for any one individual.

Three hundred and twenty-four members have signed the above Resolutions.
Of these members 206 have severed their connection with the Society, or
have notified their intention of doing so, and have signified their
willingness to have their names published in connection with this
Protest.

Fifty-three other members have also signed the Protest and resigned, but
do not wish to have their names published.

Thirty-five members have signed, but have not yet decided as to
resignation.

Thirty members have signed, but have signified their intention of
remaining in the Society, in the new International Section, or
otherwise.

There have also been a very large number of resignations by members who
have not signed this Protest, but who signed the first Resolutions sent
out in November last with the Reply of the Protest Committee to the
President's Letter.

The following members of the Executive Committee have resigned, and have
left the Society:

HERBERT BURROWS.        G.R.S.MEAD.
A.M.GLASS.              A.P.SINNETT.
W.KINGSLAND.            EDITH WARD.

The following Lodges have severed their connection with the Society.

ADELPHI                 President, J.M.Watkins.
BATTERSEA                  "       A.P.Cattanach.
BRISTOL                    "       Miss G.Platnauer.
DIDSBURY                   "       E.E.Marsden.
DUBLIN                     "       G.W.Russell.
EXETER                     "       Lt.Col. Montague.
HULL                       "       H.E.Nichol.
LONDON                     "       A.P.Sinnett.
MIDDLESBROUGH              "       W.H.Thomas.

The following is an analysis of the signatures, and the names of the 206
members above referred to, who have resigned and consented to the
publication of their names.

ADELPHI LODGE:- J.M.Watkins (President). - Mrs. Watkins. - H.J.Dyer.  -
Miss Saunders. - C.W.C.Barlow. - Miss Howsin. - A.F.Winckley.

BLAVATSKY LODGE: - G.R.S.Mead (President). - Mrs. Mead.
- Miss Eardley-Wilmot. - C.J.Barker. - Mrs. Barker. - Miss Tisdale.  -
Miss M.Wolff van Sandau. - Mrs. E.Wood. - J.F.Tilly. - Mrs. Tilly.  -
Miss J.R.Willats. - Mrs. A.M.A. Rice. - G.A.Simmons.
- Mrs. William Sharp. - J.R.Foster. - H.Burrows. - F.G.Castaneda.  -
V.C.Turnbull. - Miss S.B.Wilson. - Mrs. C.A.Baynes. - Miss A.Claxton. -
Mrs. M.M.W.Kidston. - W.Theobald. - Mrs. Theobald. - Miss M.Theobald.  -
Miss A.G.Theobald. - B.G.Theobald. - Mrs. F.E.Marshall.  - Miss
C.E.Marshall. - W.T.Harrison. - Miss L.A.Peile. - Miss G.Linde. -
P.Hookham. - Miss L.Henderson. - Mrs. C.Macrae. - Dr. C.G.Currie.  -
Mrs. Currie. - J.S.Brown. - Mrs. S.F.Dudley. - Miss S.E.Hall. -
H.A.Colvile. - Miss A.L.Gaimes. - J.A.Kinnison. - Mrs. Kinnison.  -
H.R.Hogg. - Mrs. Hogg. - Mrs. Hoffmeister. - Mrs. M.H.Malan.  - Miss
T.J.O'Connell. - W.F.Kirby. - J.R.Acton. - Mrs. A.K.Ledger.  - Miss
J.Spence. - Miss E.M.L.Scull. - Col. R.H.Forman.
- A.M.Glass. - H.E.Colbett. - H.L.Shindler. - Thirty-five other
signatories.

BATH LODGE:- F.Bligh Bond.

BATTERSEA LODGE:- A.P.Cattanach (President). - Mrs. Cattanach.  - Miss
H.R.Gutteridge. - W.Hewett. - One other signatory.

BOURNEMOUTH LODGE:- E. H. Bellairs.

BRIGHTON LODGE:- Dr. Alfred King (President). - Mrs. King. -
J.F.Bigwood.  - Four other signatories.

BRISTOL LODGE: - Miss G.S.Platnauer (President). - T.R.Freeman. - Miss
F.K.Simmons. - S.W.Smith. - F.H.Stevens. - Mrs. A.K.Furnival. - Miss
A.Dobbie. - F.H.Palmer. - One other signatory.

DIDSBURY LODGE:- E.E.Marsden (President). - Mrs. Marsden. - Mrs.
E.E.Worthington. - H.Levy. - Miss H.D.Mackie. - Miss F.Jackson. -
F.H.Clarke. - Mrs. Clarke. - Mrs. E.Harrold. - W.G.Wilson. - Mrs.
Wilson. - Miss K.Whitehead. - Miss E.Booth. - Miss L.Peck. - C.Midgley.
- Mrs. Midgley. -Five other signatories.

DUBLIN LODGE:- Mrs. M.E.Greene. - Mrs. G.E.Jones. - Mrs. L.Robinson. -
Miss. M.Kelly. - Mrs. Kelly. - J. Tingly. - Mrs. E.S.Thornton.

EDINBURGH LODGE:- Mrs. Drummond (President). - Miss E.Drummond. - Mrs.
M.H.Darlison. - Mrs. L.Handyside. - Mrs. M.H.Hebdens. - J.J.Bell. - Miss
Edith Grant. - Miss Cochrane. - Miss I. Cochrane. - Mrs. Frater. - Miss
Raeburn. - Miss E.C.Raeburn. - Mrs. Cragie Prophit. - Miss White. - Five
other signatories.

EXETER LODGE:- Lt.Col. L.A.D.Montague (President). - Miss Wheaton. -
Miss Z.L.Montague. - Miss F.Lake. - Miss E.E.Snodgrass. - Five other
signatories.

GLASGOW LODGE:- R.H.Andrews. - Miss M.S.Ferguson.

H.P.B. LODGE:- H.E.Parry. - Miss C.E.Woods. - Mrs. C.F.Buller. -
S.A.Mappin. - Mrs. Mappin. - Mrs. C.B.Fernandez.
- Five other signatories.

HARROGATE LODGE:- Mrs. B.Ringrose. - Miss A. B. Woodhead.

HULL LODGE:- H.E.Nichol (President). - Mrs. Nichol. -J.W.Burton. - Mrs.
E.B.Burton. - Miss C.A.Eccles.

LONDON LODGE:- Lady Raines. - Mrs. B.H.M.Riddle. - Mrs. E.R.Cull. - Mrs.
C.G.R.Smith. - Mrs. K.Baldwin. - Mrs. H.Huntly.
- Mrs. N.Malan. - Mme. Gennadius. - C.B.Wheeler. - Mrs. J.M.S.Walker. -
Mrs. V.B.Thompson. -Three other signatories.

LIVERPOOL LODGE:- Mrs. C.B.Avery. - Mrs. M.Fulton. - Mrs. L.M.Queen. -
Miss M.Barber. - Miss B.M.Mylehreest. - Three other signatories.

LEEDS LODGE:- C.N.Goode. - Mrs. Goode. - A.W.Waddington.

MANCHESTER CITY LODGE:- J.Mayo. - Mrs. Hadfield. - Miss Hadfield. - Two
other signatories.

MIDDLESBROUGH LODGE:- W.H.Thomas (President). - Miss M.E.Thomas. - Baker
Hudson. - Mrs. M G.Macfadzean. - J.A.Jones.
- One other signatory.

NORTH LONDON LODGE: - V. Lewis. - Mrs. E.C.V.Worley. - One other
signatory.

SHEFFIELD LODGE:- C.E.Young (President). - R.Cheatle. - R.Pexton. - Mrs.
Pexton. - J. Abey. - J.Wood. - One other signatory.

WEST LONDON LODGE:- Miss E.Ward (President). - Mrs. F.Ozanne.  - Mrs.
G.B.O'Donnell. - Miss Fortescue. - Mrs. A.Mallalue.  - W.A.Carson. -
Mrs. Carson. - Mrs. E.J.Beatty. - Two other signatories.

UNATTACHED:- Mme. de Steiger. - E. de M.Malan. - G.H.Popplestone. -
I.L.F.Paynter. - Mrs. M.C.Brown. - Mrs. E.Kilburn. - O.Firth. -
W.H.Bean. - Miss H.K.Burke. -Miss H.Bloxam. - I.H.Mitchell. - Mrs.
Mitchell. - E.Melland. - Miss G.H.Minet. - Miss H.G.Micklethwait. - Miss
A.M.Bostock. - W.Kingsland. - J.Dowall. - Mrs. J.Dowall.  - Mrs.
E.Schaub. - G.Graham. - Miss M.Scott-Kerr. - Eighteen other
signatories.

BRUSSELS:- Seventeen signatories.

OTHER BRITISH LODGES:- Ten signatories.
At the Caxton Hall Meeting above referred to, the Protest Committee were
empowered to "receive, consider and report on any suggestion that may be
made as to the best manner of keeping together those who feel compelled
to withdraw from the Society."

No suggestions, however, have been received by the Committee; but the
formation of a Society on the lines outlined by Mr. Mead at the above
meeting is now an accomplished fact.

The name which was then proposed for this Society was, "The Mystical
Research Society." This, however, has since been changed to "THE QUEST
SOCIETY." Full particulars of this Organisation can be obtained from the
Hon. Secretary, THE QUEST SOCIETY, 16, Selwood Place, Onslow Gardens,
S.W.

A Conference of members and ex-members of the Theosophical Society,
living in the North of England, was held at Manchester on January 19,
1909; at which Mr. G.R.S.Mead was also present. The Conference resolved
to form Local Societies on lines more or less similar to those of the
Quest Society; and also to federate such Societies when constituted.

Mr. W.H.Thomas, The Ness, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough, consented to act as
Hon. Secretary, pro tem., and will be pleased to supply all particulars
to intending members.

It may also be mentioned that in most cases where Lodges have resigned
their Charters they are continuing their work under some different name.

The work of the Protest Committee is now practically finished. The
subscriptions which they received have been most generous and ample, and
a small balance is still in hand. It is proposed to retain this for a
short time, in view of any eventuality arising which might necessitate
its being called upon; but in due course a balance sheet will be sent to
each subscriber, and suggestions will be asked for as to how the balance
should he disposed of.

THE PROTEST COMMITTEE.

16, SELWOOD PLACE, ONSLOW GARDENS,
LONDON, S.W.

May 1, 1909.

Scanned and uploaded by Alan Bain
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Jun 10 20:45:50 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:45:50 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606102151.RAA21998@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Russian TS

>To: liesel@dreamscape.com
>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 01:34:24 +0300
>From: Kay Ziatz 
>Reply-To: Kay Ziatz 
>Subject: Russian TS
>
>
>L> almost crorrect, but, to me, it misses 1 important ingredient.
>L> Western Theosophists believe that as much as possible we must try to be
>L> the master of your own fate.
>  It's like a karma, or maybe a part of karma, i.e. it doesn't
>neglect our free will, but creates conditions made by our own
>previous thinking.
>
>L> "egregore' is not for them, they make a great effort to break away.
>  Yes, they always can leave, but an ergeroge will make them pay.
>It's like a gangster organization that is possible to leave, but
>very difficult.
>
>L> I think your idea comes from someone who has lived for a long time
>L> under a dictatorial regime
>   No, it was published in Russia in 1907 with a reference to some
>"French occult school". I've read it in a footnote in CWL's "Astral
>plane" made by translator. Origin is: Tukholka. "Occultism & Magic".
>St-Peterburg, 1907. Some people think that conception of egregores
>comes from Kabbalah.
>   It's true, in so called "totalitaire regimes" egregores play a
>great role. Because of that it's impossible to change regime quickly -
>as you probably know, estimation of vote for communist leader Zuga-
>nov is approx. 30%. People when asked say that they will vote for
>communists, but don't know why.
> New anecdote:
>Old women carries big bags full of sugar, flour, salt, etc. from a shop.
>- What is all it for?
>- I make a reserve, because communists are coming.
>- And whom will you vote for?
>- For them of course!
>
>L> belong to the ES, the Esoteric School, which seems to rule everything.
>When i worked in the Russian TS, i've used a scanner to input articles
>for our magazin. And this scanner had always made funny corrections to
>text. The original header was: "School of wisdom in Adyar". Scanner cor-
>rected one letter in word "mudrost" (wisdom) from "m" to "sh" and the re-
>sult was something like this: "School of shudraship" :)
>
>L> It's going to be mostly my writings.
>What are you writing about?
>Do you write for any theosophicall magazine?
>
>L> when I feel better.
>Are you ill? I would recommend to you a simple method to restore
>physical forces. Method is following: you should not eat all the morning -
>from wake up till approx. 2-3 p.m., only drink if you want. After that
>you can eat like you always do.  It's because of astral body repairs
>an etheric one at night and latter restores physical one. They may
>not finish their work in the morning, but they are interrupted by
>digestion process. But you should no limit yourself in drink.
>
>L> We can get petitions together via e-mail, but last I heard Adyar was
>L> aginst going into the Internet.
>I mean petitions via ordinary mail (post office), but with using
>Internet to coordinate work. Adyar replies very slow. In 1993 i
>wrote a letter that i wanna join a Society and order some books.
>An answer came only in march 1996, with information & book cata-
>logue. By the way, i've scanned it and can send to you if you
>haven't.
>
>        Konstantin

From RIhle@aol.com Mon Jun 10 07:07:10 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 03:07:10 -0400
From: RIhle@aol.com
Message-Id: <960610030708_552950540@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

>Jerry S. writes>
>	I would love to see Theosophy become a haven for
>"truth-seekers."  It has always attracted these folk, but has never
>seemed to be able to hold them for long.  The problem?  In a word,
>technique.

Richard Ihle writes>
I agree.

There are probably some other things also.

One which comes to mind right away is something I call "GRADUAL DAWNING."
 After being attracted by THE THREE OBJECTS and the idea of the PERSONAL
QUEST, a particular type of member may start to get a funny feeling that
there could be a certain duplicity in the freedom-of-belief statements etc.
 Personally, this never bothered me very much until recent years when
possible signs of "filtering," and perhaps even political manipulation,
started to show up.  It might be that the ~dawning~ process is getting less
~gradual~ each year for newer members; indeed, it is my impression is that
they are in-and-out faster than ever.  It will be interesting to see what the
impact is of John Algeo's forthrightness in THE MESSENGER about the Society's
role in "helping the work of the Masters," the secret meaning of the The
Three Objects etc.  Perhaps the ~dawn~ will now start coming for people ~even
before~ they have a chance to sign the membership cards. . . .

J.S.>
>The bottom line here [regarding technique] is that if
>we want to attract, and keep, truth-seekers, then we have to give
>them more than books to read.

R.I.>
Yes, and I think you, in particular, would be an excellent person to go
around sharing some of your developmental experiences with Theosophical
audiences.

J.S.>
> The problem with this [sharing of individual theosophical insight] is that
>it smacks of psychism, the dreaded p word.  How are members to know if
>you are drawing your information from "higher" insight, or from kama-manas?
>The obvious answer here is that, by definition, "higher" insight will agree
with
>HPB and the MLs, and anything that differs must be psychism.

R.I.>
I think we must have had different experiences within the Society, Jerry.  In
all honesty, until recent years, I was getting super-encouragement for both
my writing and speaking--in particular from Joy, Dorothy, and every editor of
the AT since Virginia Hansen--and I was certainly not repeating things I had
read in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.   However, I was not known for being involved
with magic, so that might have been the difference.

J.S.>
>	What I want is a Theosophy-means-this, as a small subset
>of theosophy, however you want define little t theosophy (I like your
>definition just fine, but only for t, not T).

R.I.>
Again, we already have a ~Theosophy-means-this~.  It does not mean
~reincarnation~; it means ~what HPB says about reincarnation~.  It does not
mean ~karma~; it means ~what HPB says about karma~.

Capital-T ~Theosophy~ (for specific doctrine) is already here.  You do not
have to do a thing.  Indeed, you ~cannot~ do a thing.  For example, you
cannot from personal theosophical insight say something about reincarnation
which is slightly inconsistent with HPB and expect that your view will be
considered ~Theosophy~.  It won't.  You want the term defined in some more
expanded, sophisticated way.  It will not be.  Capital-T is well established
and already here.  It means what HPB said about all those topics you listed
in a previous post.  BIG ~T~ is already here, and it should probably be
inverted because it holds people in place so well when they sit on it. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle


From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 10 08:11:20 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 01:11:20 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960610081120.006db87c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

At 09:23 PM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote:

>	While I was using a couple of Web search engines to find
>"Theosophy", I inadvertantly stumbled across something called _Theosophy:
>A Portrait_, by (you guessed it) "John Algeo: President of the
>Theosophical Society in America". It is a thirteen page discourse,
>apparently designed to inform people who have never heard of the TS
>(e.g., it starts by saying the TS was formed by HPB, HSO, & WQJ in New
>york, etc., etc.). Algeo is writing here, notice, in his official role as
>President.
>	The actual *Objects* are not mentioned until the fourth page, and
>are discussed thus:
>	"The first object of the Theosophical Society is (in one
>wording), "To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity
>without distinction of race, creed, sex caste, or color" and the second
>is "To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and
>science". As those objects indicate, Theosophy is dedicated to increasing
>cooperation among human beings and understanding among their cultures and
>religions."
>
>	That's right folks, *THE THIRD OBJECT HAS DISAPPEARED*! It is
>mentioned *nowhere in the entire piece*.
>	Just who the *hell* does this guy think he is?
>						       Lividly, -JRC

You know JRC?I don't believe in intrinsic evil (or intrinsic good for that
matter) but John Algeo is, I thank a man who is approaching intrinsic evil,
or else a very stupid one. The Three objects in unison are all that makes
theosophy worth existing. Take object three away and you invalidate the
other two completely. How does it demonstrate that: "theosophy is dedicated
to increasing cooperation among human beings and understanding among their
cultures and religions" when Annie Besant was cozying up to Mussolini?

alexis, who is just as furious as you!
>
>[PS. For those who have browsers, the article can be found at:
>	http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr155
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 10 08:18:54 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 01:18:54 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960610081854.006d39b4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy as a Thesaurus?

At 11:03 PM 6/9/96 -0400, you wrote:

>>>
>Quite so.  It is important to preserve her writings *as writings* and
>not "holy writ."  One of the great occultists in history, I am told, was
>Cornelius Agrippa, who wrote three books on Occult Philosophy.  I read
>his work in the 17th century edition in 1956-7.  Some of it is good,
>some of it is awful.  There is no Saint Cornelius, and we do not need a
>Saint Helena Blavatsky, however much we may respect her and her work.

Belive me, not only do I agree but I assure you no one would be more
horrified to be sanctified than the "elephant woman".
>
>As you say elswhere, Alexis, some may join Theosophy International
>(caps. for name of org.) - maybe Richard Ihle will one day succumb!

Give him time, give him time.
>
>All Hail!
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Ave

alexis

From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 10 15:31:27 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:31:27 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960610113126_411075006@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do?

Doss,
I haven't had any reason to.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 10 15:32:32 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:32:32 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960610113231_411075653@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: egregores

Alex,
Every interpretation I've seen is that it is nothing more than a glorified
thoughtform.  somebody just had to make up a new word.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 10 15:32:35 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:32:35 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960610113234_411075672@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-l Statistics

IRAN??????????
Such courage should be rewarded.

Chuck MTI, FTSA
From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 10 18:21:24 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:21:24 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960610182124.006bf700@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: egregores

At 11:34 AM 6/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Every interpretation I've seen is that it is nothing more than a glorified
>thoughtform.  somebody just had to make up a new word.
>
>Chuck
>
>Oh...In this case I think it was Nicholas Roerich who made up the word.
It's just pompous enough for him. He was an excellent artist though.
Thought forms are real easy to do, now a Golem, that takes a little talent.

alexis

From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Mon Jun 10 17:33:44 1996
Date:          Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:30:44 -0300
From: 
Subject:       Re:Unveiled Isis
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <9E62A3865@serv.peb.ufrj.br>

HPB says in Unveiled Isis Vol III chapterVII note 91, that Irenaeus distorted
gnostic doctrines. In this posting I reproduce some comments that we
can find in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol 6 Micropaedia 15th edition
(search for Irenaeus).

"Irenaeus adopted a totally negative and unresponsive attitude, however, toward
Marcion, a schismatic leader in Rome, and towrad gnosticism, a fashionable
intellectual movement in the rapidly expanding church that espoused dualism.
Because gnosticism was overcome though the efforts of the early church fathers,
among them Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, gnostic writings were largely
obliterated. In reconstructing gnostic doctrines therefore, modern scholars
 relied to a great extent on the writings of Irenaeus who summarized the gnostic
views before attacking them. After the discovery of the gnostic library near
Naj'Hammadi (in Egypt in the 1940s) respect for Irenaeus INCREASED, he was proved
to have been extremely precise in his report of doctrines he rejected".

So HPB commits a unfairness against Irenaeus.

Abrantes
From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 10 21:45:30 1996
Date: 10 Jun 96 17:45:30 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term
Message-Id: <960610214529_76400.1474_HHL85-1@CompuServe.COM>

>R.I.>
>Again, we already have a ~Theosophy-means-this~.  It does not mean
>~reincarnation~; it means ~what HPB says about reincarnation~.  It does not
>mean ~karma~; it means ~what HPB says about karma~.
	You hit the nail on the head here.  HPB, bless her heart,
gave out a lot of exoteric material, which was fine at the time, but
is stale today.  Americans are a lot smarter than 19th-century
Hindu or Buddhists students, and demand a lot more than karma
as reward-and-punishment.  For myself, I loved it at first, then
digested it, and then hungered for more, found it, and am now
dissatisfied with the exoteric material in the TS literature.
As I have said many times, there is a whole lot more to karma
and reincarnation than is found in the TS literature.
I have no problem with defining Theosophy as a collection
of core teachings and then list the headings.  Even giving
out HPB's version is OK, providing it is acknowledged as
exoteric (which it is)--I think that this is what Eldon has in mind
when he talks about mining for gold, etc.  But if we limit
Theosophy to only HPB's versions then we are in trouble,
because then the truth seeker will never get beyond the
exoteric shell (and many may not anyway, but the fact that
it is, after all, only an exoteric husk, should be given to
all truth seekers however far they care to tread the Path).


>Capital-T ~Theosophy~ (for specific doctrine) is already here.  You do not
>have to do a thing.  Indeed, you ~cannot~ do a thing.  For example, you
>cannot from personal theosophical insight say something about reincarnation
>which is slightly inconsistent with HPB and expect that your view will be
>considered ~Theosophy~.  It won't.
	Richard, this was exactly my problem, and I just about quit
the TS because of it.  Only having Peacenet kept me within the fold.
Peacenet, and now theos-l, provide a venue for my thoughts and experiences
that I cannot get within any TS.  Even Quest probably wouldn't have printed
most of my essays, especially the one on morals and ethics.  Now, most
of the time HPB's statements are so vague as to allow multiple
interpretations, and I can use them just fine.  The problem is that I often
want to say things that she never discussed, and as Eldon, Jerry HE and
others have suggested, her omissions are generally construed as
negative opinions.  In other words, if she doesn't mention it, it probably
is not so.  This is not the case *every* time, but too often for me.
For example, how does memory interface with karma?  Can we
eliminate karma, and if so, how?  Where does psychology fit into the
whole reincarnation cycle?  What about developmental tasks over the
whole reincarnation cycle?   And so on.  There is a whole world of material
that she simply never discussed.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI




From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 10 21:45:31 1996
Date: 10 Jun 96 17:45:31 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: egregores
Message-Id: <960610214530_76400.1474_HHL85-2@CompuServe.COM>

>Alex,
>Every interpretation I've seen is that it is nothing more than a glorified
>thoughtform.  somebody just had to make up a new word.
>
>Chuck

	Correct.  Egregore is an old occult word, while thoughtform
is a younger theosophical word.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From euser@euronet.nl Mon Jun 10 21:59:25 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:59:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606102159.XAA08957@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings



>Martin comments: if we view swabhava as operating on all planes of
>existence, then their would be a spiritual swabhava too.
	We don't view swabhava as operating on all planes.

JS>At least, I and Buddhism don't.  It only operates on the lower
four planes (physical, astral, mental, and causal).  Above the
Abyss, the sense of oneness obliterates all swabhavic tendencies.

According to my understanding of Theosophy swabhava operates also
above the Abyss, but I'm not sure whether it is actually stated so
by GdP. He says that swabhava is behind karma, reincarnation and
hierarchies. So, for him it is a very important concept.
So, it would not surprise me (according to this line of reasoning)
if the Divine Self has or rather is its own Swabhava, being a spiritual
ray from a star (in GdP's system).
My guess is that swabhava is involved with the emanation of rays
of consciousness/light by all kinds of Monads, but I admit that
swabhava in the Theosophical sense is a rather abstruse concept.
Its like keys, chords and themes in a composition of music, the things
that structure the piece of music. Swabhava (essential characteristic) and
skandhas structure and give form, expression, to our life (a crude analogy,
perhaps).

>Martin comments: if it is a circle, then what about progressive evolution,
>a key concept in theosophy?
	
JS>"Progressive evolution" is an illusion, a maya, just like
 swabhava.  Both are very real on the lower four planes, but do not
 exist on the higher planes.

How can you be so sure about that?


>Martin comments> But most of us (all?) need several lifetimes to
>complete this circle. Every next life we get closer to this unity
>of Self with Not-Self (if we tread the spiritual path).
>So, don't we see a spiral here instead of a circle?



JS>	Yes, there is a spiral, but it exists within an overall
circle.  In order to understand reincarnation, go back to its
very beginnings and ask yourself where it all starts.  There
cannot logically be any "beginning" as such.  This is exactly
what gets Christianity into so much logical hot water.  We
only get out of this delimna by assuming a circle--we begin
as spiritual, go through countless manvantaras of spirals
both downward and upward, and then wind up spiritual
again--a big circle, without beginning or end, and without
logic problems.

	
Make it an infinite, eternally moving circle and I'll go along
with that.

Martin
Member TI

From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 10 23:13:13 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:13:13 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960610191311_214541967@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

John and Alex,
We need good articles for alt. theosophy on psychism as the only true path to
enlightenment.  That should send a a few hairs rising.  Now as this week I
don't have time to write them with Nutmeg coming this weekend (a gathering of
magicians on the internet) if one of you could come up with it, it could be
great fun and maybe make some of the old duddie fuddies see the error of
their ways.

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 10 23:13:25 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:13:25 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960610191323_214542058@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy as a Thesaurus?

Alex,
The "ELEPHANT WOMAN?"
Are you stealing my jokes?

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker

From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 05:14:34 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:14:34 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611011432_553697409@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: egregores

Alex,
Roerich was a great artist but he should have avoided politics.  Remember
that silly Roerich Pact with the silly flags on top of the buildings.  Came
the big war those flags all became aiming marks for artillery.
Personally, I think coming up with a word like egregore when thoughtform will
work just as well was pretty egregious of him.

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 05:14:39 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:14:39 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611011438_553697483@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: remote viewing

To all of you interested in the subject of remote viewing and government use
of it, there is a web page devoted to that material.
http://www.ameritel.net/lusers/reviewer

Chuck MTI, FTSA
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 05:14:45 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:14:45 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611011436_553697438@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: egregores

Jerry,
Really?  Well then, you got me that time.  I hadn't run across it until
recently so just (within a few millenia or so) how old is it? :-)

Chuck MTI, FTSA
From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Jun 11 05:59:07 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:59:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: egregores
In-Reply-To: <960611011432_553697409@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:

> Alex,
> Roerich was a great artist but he should have avoided politics.  Remember
> that silly Roerich Pact with the silly flags on top of the buildings.  Came
> the big war those flags all became aiming marks for artillery.
> Personally, I think coming up with a word like egregore when thoughtform will
> work just as well was pretty egregious of him.
	No kidding. Myself, I enjoy making egregores galore - but when it
comes to golems - well, I just have my homonculus make those.
							Har har, -JRC
From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 11 06:10:26 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:10:26 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960611061026.006cefe4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

At 07:14 PM 6/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>John and Alex,
>We need good articles for alt. theosophy on psychism as the only true path to
>enlightenment.  That should send a a few hairs rising.  Now as this week I
>don't have time to write them with Nutmeg coming this weekend (a gathering of
>magicians on the internet) if one of you could come up with it, it could be
>great fun and maybe make some of the old duddie fuddies see the error of
>their ways.
>
>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>If I could manage to get on alt. theosophy I'd be happy to comply. But damn
it, I can't.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 11 06:13:15 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:13:15 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960611061315.006b4690@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy as a Thesaurus?

At 07:14 PM 6/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>The "ELEPHANT WOMAN?"
>Are you stealing my jokes?
>
>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>Actually chuck, Yelena herself used that term to describe herself when she
was accused of having "seduced" several of her more famous male followers
(Sir William Crookes for example) so if anyone stole your jokes, you're a
lot older than you admit to being!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 11 06:24:30 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:24:30 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960611062430.006b4cec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: egregores

At 01:18 AM 6/11/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Roerich was a great artist but he should have avoided politics.  Remember
>that silly Roerich Pact with the silly flags on top of the buildings.  Came
>the big war those flags all became aiming marks for artillery.
>Personally, I think coming up with a word like egregore when thoughtform will
>work just as well was pretty egregious of him.
>
>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>Jerry S. says that egregore is an "old occult term" that means it was
invented by all those crazies in the middle ages while hunting for the
philosopher's stone!....typical of them. May mantichores nibble their bones!
Roerich, G de P, and Rudy Steiner had much in common, they were all pompous,
smug, self-righteous, irreversibly middle-class, self-satisfied,
puritannical, teutonic bores.


alexis

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 22:43:17 1996
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:43:17 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term
In-Reply-To: <960610030708_552950540@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960610030708_552950540@emout09.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com
writes
>BIG ~T~ is already here, and it should probably be
>inverted because it holds people in place so well when they sit on it. . . .
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Richard Ihle
>
"BIG MOTHER IS WATCHING YOU" ?

(With apologies to George Orwell)

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 11 12:24:59 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 07:24:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960611072728.22df4258@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Theosophy in Cyberspace

Hi

Here is the material we discussed recently about the following being found
in one of the homepages in the web.

-----------------------------------------------------.


THEOSOPHY: A Portrait



by Dr. John Algeo

President of the Theosophical Society in America



About Theosophy



The modern Theosophical movement dates from the founding of the

Theosophical Society in New York City in 1875 by Helena Petrovna

Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge, and others.

The movement, however, views itself as a contemporary expression

of a tradition going back to the Neo-Platonists of Classical

antiquity (hence the name) and earlier. Primary concepts are:



     * (1) the fundamental unity of all existence, so that all

dichotomies -- matter and spirit, the human and the divine, I

and thou -- are seen as transitory and relative distinctions

of an underlying absolute Oneness;



     * (2) the regularity of universal law, cyclically producing

universes out of the absolute ground of being; and



     * (3) the progress of consciousness developing through the

cycles of life to an ever-increasing realization of Unity.



Theosophy is nondogmatic, but many Theosophists believe in:

reincarnation; karma (or moral justice); the existence of worlds

of experience beyond the physical; the presence of life and

consciousness in all matter; the evolution of spirit and

intelligence as well as matter; the possibility of conscious

participation in evolution; the power of thought to affect one's

self and surroundings; free will and self-responsibility; the

duty of altruism, a concern for the welfare of others.



These beliefs often lead to such practices as meditation,

vegetarianism and care for animal welfare, active support of

women's and minority rights, and a concern for ecology.



Knowledge of such ideas and practices derives from the traditions

of cultures spread over the world from antiquity to the present in

a "perennial philosophy" or "ancient wisdom," held to be

fundamentally identical in all cultures. But it also derives from

the experiences of individuals through the practice of meditation

and the development of insight. No Theosophist is asked to accept

any opinion or adopt any practice that does not appeal to the

inner sense of reason and morality.



Theosophy has no developed rituals. Meetings typically consist of

talks and discussion or the study of a book, although they may be

opened and closed by brief meditations or the recitation of short

texts. There are no privileged symbols in Theosophy, but various

symbols from the religious traditions of the world are used, such

as the interlaced triangles and the ankh.



Today there are three main Theosophical organizations. Membership

statistics are not available for all of them, but the American

section of the society with international headquarters in Madras,

India, has a membership of about 5,000. There are associated

groups in about 50 countries.



Theosophy in the World Today



The first object of the Theosophical Society is (in one wording),

"To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity

without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color";

and the second is, "To encourage the study of comparative

religion, philosophy and science." As those objects indicate,

Theosophy is dedicated to increasing cooperation among human

beings and understanding among their cultures and religions.



Theosophy holds that all religions are expressions of humanity's

effort to relate to one another, to the universe around us, and

to the ultimate ground of being. Particular religions differ from

one another because they are expressions of that effort adapted

to particular times, places, cultures, and needs. Theosophy is

not itself a religion, although it is religious, in being

concerned with the effort to relate. Individual Theosophists

profess various of the world's religions -- Christian, Jewish,

Moslem, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist; others have no religious

affiliation.



The Theosophical Society has, from the time of its founding,

promoted dialogue and cooperation among the religious traditions

of humanity, since we regard them all as varying expressions of a

basic human need and impulse. The Society itself is an expression

of the faith that human beings, however diverse their

backgrounds, can communicate and cooperate.



Primary Challenges and Issues Facing Humanity



Humanity is faced by a range of seemingly insuperable problems:

uncontrolled population growth, diminishing resources,

exploitation of one group by another, ancient animosities,

passion for revenge, racial antagonism, religious prejudice,

territorial ambition, destructive use of the environment,

oppression of women, disregard of the rights of others, greed for

wealth and power, and so on. In the Theosophical view, all these

are secondary or derivative problems -- the symptoms of a

disease. The primary, original problem, the cause of the disease,

is the illusion of separateness, the notion that we are

unconnected, independent beings whose particular welfare can be

achieved at the expense of the general good.



The primary challenge facing humanity is therefore to recognize

the unity of our species and in turn our ultimate unity with all

life in the universe. Despite the superficial cultural and

genetic differences that divide humanity, we are a remarkably

homogeneous species -- physically, psychologically,

intellectually, and spiritually. Biologically, we are a single

human gene pool, with only minor local variations.

Psychologically and intellectually, we respond to stimuli in

fundamentally the same way. Linguistically, behind the surface

variations of the world's tongues, our underlying language

ability is remarkably uniform. Spiritually, we have a common

origin and a common destiny.



Neither is the human species isolated from the rest of life in

the universe. We are part and parcel of the totality of existence

stretching from this planet Earth to the farthest reaches of the

cosmos in every conceivable dimension. When we realize our

integral connection with all other human beings, with all other

life forms, with the most distant reaches of space, we will

realize that we cannot either harm or help another without

harming or helping ourselves. We are all one, not as metaphor,

but as fact.



Individual Theosophists engage in social, political, and

charitable action as they are moved by their consciences and

sense of duty to become so engaged. They are urged by the

Theosophical tradition to realize the concept of Unity in

practical responses to the challenges we face. Collectively and

as Theosophists, however, we do not regard it as our special

calling to be social, political, or charitable activists.

Theosophy addresses the cause rather than the symptoms of the

human disease. Theosophy seeks to make humanity aware --

intellectually, affectively, and experientially -- of our unity

with one another and with the whole universe. From such awareness

will flow naturally and inevitably a respect for differences, a

wise use of the environment, the fair treatment of others, a

sympathy with the afflictions of our neighbors, and the will to

respond to those afflictions helpfully and lovingly.





SELECTED TEXTS FROM THEOSOPHICAL WRITINGS



"Help Nature and work on with her; and Nature will regard

thee as one of her creators and make obeisance." [sl. 26]



"To live to benefit mankind is the first step." [sl. 144]

     -- H.P. BLAVATSKY, *The Voice of the Silence,* 1889





"There is a road, steep and thorny, beset with perils of every

kind, but yet a road, and it leads to the very heart of the

Universe: I can tell you how to find those who will show you the

secret gateway that opens inward only, and closes fast behind the

neophyte for evermore. There is no danger that dauntless courage

cannot conquer; there is no trial that spotless purity cannot

pass through; there is no difficulty that strong intellect cannot

surmount. For those who win onwards, there is reward past all

telling -- the power to bless and save humanity; for those who

fail, there are other lives in which success may come."

     -- H.P. BLAVATSKY, 1891, CW 13:219



"O hidden Life,

        vibrant in every atom,

O hidden Light,

        shining in every creature,

O hidden Love,

        embracing all in oneness,

May all who feel themselves

        as one with thee

Know they are therefore one

        with every other."

     -- ANNIE BESANT





"It is well known that the first rule of the society is to carry

out the object of forming the nucleus of a universal brotherhood.

The practical working of this rule was explained by those who

laid it down, to the following effect:

     `He who does not practice altruism; he who is not prepared

to share his last morsel with a weaker or poorer than himself; he

who neglects to help his brother man, of whatever race, nation or

creed, whenever and wherever he meets suffering, and who turns a

deaf ear to the cry of human misery; he who hears an innocent

person slandered, whether a brother Theosophist or not, and does

not undertake his defense as he would undertake his own -- is no

Theosophist.'

    --H.P. BLAVATSKY, in  "Let Every Man Prove His Own Work,"

1887, CW 8:170-71



"There is but one way of ever ameliorating human life

and it is by the love of one's fellow man for his own sake and

not for personal gratification. The greatest Theosophist -- he

who loves divine truth under all its forms -- is the one who

works for and with the poor."

     --H.P. BLAVATSKY, "Misconceptions," 1887, CW 8:77



"The Society was founded to teach no new and easy paths to the

acquisition of "powers"; ...its only mission is to re-kindle the

torch of truth, so long extinguished for all but the very few,

and to keep that truth alive by the formation of a fraternal

union of mankind, the only soil in which the good seed can grow."

     --H.P. BLAVATSKY, "Spiritual Progress," 1885, CW 6:333



"The path of right progress should include the amelioration of

the individual, the nation, the race, and humanity; and ever

keeping in view the last and grandest object, the perfecting of

man, should reject all apparent bettering of the individual at

the expense of his neighbor."

     --H.P. BLAVATSKY, *The Struggle for Existence,* 1889, CW

11:151-52



"If Theosophy prevailing in the struggle, its all-embracing

philosophy strikes deep root into the minds and hearts of men, if

its doctrines of Reincarnation and Karma, in other words, of Hope

and Responsibility, find a home in the lives of the new

generations, then, indeed, will dawn the day of joy and gladness

for all who now suffer and are outcast. For real Theosophy is

Altruism, and we cannot repeat it too often. It is brotherly

love, mutual help, unswerving devotion to Truth. If once men do

but realize that in these alone can true happiness be found, and

never in wealth, possessions or any selfish gratification, then

the dark clouds will roll away, and a new humanity will be born

upon earth. Then, the Golden Age will be there, indeed."

     --H.P. BLAVATSKY,

 "Our Cycle and the Next," 1889, CW 11:202





FOR MORE INFORMATION:



Theosophical Society

International Headquarters

Adyar, Madras, India 600020



Theosophical Society in America (and Quest Books)

PO Box 270

Wheaton, IL 60189



The Theosophical Society (and Theosophical University Press)

PO Box C, Pasadena, CA 91109



United Lodge of Theosophists

245 W. 33rd St.

Los Angeles, CA 90007



---------------------- end ---------------------------

	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 11 17:01:14 1996
Date: 11 Jun 96 13:01:14 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Core Teachings
Message-Id: <960611170114_76400.1474_HHL76-1@CompuServe.COM>

Martin:
>According to my understanding of Theosophy swabhava operates also
>above the Abyss, but I'm not sure whether it is actually stated so
>by GdP. He says that swabhava is behind karma, reincarnation and
>hierarchies. So, for him it is a very important concept.
	Actually, your understanding is correct.  Technically
there is swabhava above the abyss, all the way to the uppermost
plane.  We know this because we can raise our consciousness
there, and we are still individuals.  But the swabhava above
the Abyss, like the shistas, is very general, and not as specific
as we usually think of it.  The oneness of the higher planes
tends to concel out specifics.
	Karma and reincarnation are mainly characteristics
of the lower planes.  On the higher planes are only the "seeds"
that impel us downward into periodic manifestation.  Swabhava
is a good example of the difference between theory and practice
because theoretically yes there is swabhava above the Abyss
but for practical purposes there is not.  I suspect that this is
one reason why HPB deliberately refrained from discussing
the higher planes, and talked only about the lower four.


>So, it would not surprise me (according to this line of reasoning)
>if the Divine Self has or rather is its own Swabhava, being a spiritual
>ray from a star (in GdP's system).
	It does, theoretically.  But I would not want to even try to
define or discribe it in words.  As soon as we have divine sparks
or Spiritual Monads (my I-Not-I Monad) we have differentiation,
and thus swabhava, but it is pretty hard to define.

>JS>"Progressive evolution" is an illusion, a maya, just like
> swabhava.  Both are very real on the lower four planes, but do not
> exist on the higher planes.
>
>How can you be so sure about that?
	Well, I could say intuition, but actually this conclusion
is a logical one as well because we are talking about a
beginning and end point that is outside of time and space.
Measurements and comparisons can only be made inside
spacetime.  Hierarchies don't exist outside of spacetime (the
only difference between a worm and a human being is time).
	To say that the Divine Monad is more advanced
after a manvantra then it was before gets us into a can of worms
over origins because anything that progresses (and this concept
requires time) must have started from what?  Science has taken
the universe all the way back to a Big Bang, but can't figure out
where the original materials came from or how it exploded.
If you want to do the same with the Spiritual Monad, you will
arrive at some beginning point that logically makes no sense
(a spiritual big bang?  a creation of something out of nothing?).

>Make it an infinite, eternally moving circle and I'll go along
>with that.
	"Infinite" and "eternal" only exist outside of spacetime.
In fact, that is exactly how the terms are defined.  All manifestation
is within spacetime.  So, everything within spacetime must have
a beginning and an end, a birth and a death.  Our beginning is
when we entered spacetime, and our end will be when we leave.
Of course, we can enter and leave manifestation in spacetime
as many times as we like, so in a sense it can go on forever.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 11 18:18:42 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:18:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960611132110.22f74974@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Followup on disclosure of vote tally details

Hi

Here is a reply I FAXed to John Algeo in response to a letter I received
from him. Later today I will post John's letter as I do not have it handy at
this time.

==================================================================


FAX MESSAGE



June 10, 1996 2:52 PM



John Algeo
National President
Theosophical Society in America
Wheaton IL


Dear Brother:

	I have received your letter of June 6, 1996 mailed by you by USPS and thank
you for the same.

	I am very glad to note your statement "You will be pleased to know and I am
pleased to be able to tell you that the information you want is on its way
to you." I hope it will be expedited and it will reach me in the next one or
two days.

	In my letter of June 5, 1996, I discussed the question of member's access
to Books and Records of TSA by a member in good standing or the member's
agent for any purpose. This issue is bound to come up again. The question is
just when?

	Already several weeks of correspondence has taken place on the question of
unrestricted released of election tally information details, and in my
opinion, valuable time could have been saved if the implication of the
Illinois Non Profit Law had been looked into in January 1996 itself when I
brought it up. So I would, now, request you to look into the matter and
quickly come up with an equitable protocol or procedure for full access to
TSA books and records for any purpose to any member in good standing and/or
his/her agent in compliance with the Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act.
Developing such protocol/procedure will help TSA to quickly respond to any
future requests that may be received from any member of TSA. It will be
appreciated if you can arrange to address this immediately in letting me
know the progress in the matter and the details of procedure/protocol as
soon is it is finalized.

	Thanks for again your quotes from AFM. I enjoy quotes from AFM as well as
from J. Krishnamurti as his later teachings have immensely helped me clarify
Theosophical principles and applying them in my daily life.

	I hope you can provide me with a (1) a quick response to this letter and
(2) by FAX.

	With regards and fraternal greetings,

Fraternally,



M K Ramadoss

================== end of message ============

	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Jun 11 20:31:16 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:31:16 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606112031.AA10052@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re: Unveiled Isis (Abrantes)


Abrantes Writes:

>HPB says in Unveiled Isis Vol III chapterVII note 91, that
>Irenaeus distorted gnostic doctrines. In this posting I
>reproduce some comments that we can find in Encyclopaedia
>Britannica Vol 6 Micropaedia 15th edition (search for Irenaeus).

I went through chapter VII is book I and II of the original
edition of ISIS UNVEILED and was unable to find a footnote to the
effect that you describe above.  I then when back and skimmed the
body of the text in chapter VII in Bk. II where HPB does discuss
Irenaeus, but found no statements to the effect that he
"distorted gnostic doctrines."  Though I did find where HPB
called him "prejudiced" (292) and a "bible-kaleidoscopist" (304).
She also gives ample support for these contentions in this
chapter.  My lack of success in finding the statement you are
citing leads me to wonder if the text you are using is either
annotated or contains interpolations.

I would not be surprised if HPB accuses Irenaeus of distorting
gnostic doctrines somewhere in ISIS UNVEILED, but it would be
unlike her to do so without offering specific instances of
distortion, and explaining in what manner he had distorted
doctrines.  One example of how HPB treats Irenaeus and backs up
her information would the following description concerning his
debate with Ptolemaeus:

Ecclesiastical history assures us that Christ's ministry was but
of three years' duration.  There is a decided discrepancy on this
point between the first three synoptics and the fourth gospel;
but it was left for Irenaeus to show to Christian posterity that
so early as A.D. 180--the probable time when this Father wrote
his works against heresies--even such pillars of the Church as
himself either knew nothing certain about it, or deliberately
lied and falsified dates to support their own views.  So anxious
was the worthy father to meet every possible objection against
his plans, that no falsehood, no sophistry, was too much for him.
How are we to understand the following; and who is the falsifier
in this case?  The argument of Ptolemaeus was that Jesus was too
young to have taught anything of much importance; adding that
"Christ preached for one year only, and then suffered in the
twelfth month."   In this Ptolemaeus was very little at variance
with the gospels.  But Irenaeus, carried by his object [went] far
beyond the limits of prudence, from a mere discrepancy between
one and three years, makes it ten and even twenty years!
"Destroying his (Christ's) whole work, and robbing him of that
age which is both necessary and more honorable than any other;
that more advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher,
he excelled all others."  and then, having no certain data to
furnish, he throws himself back on tradition, and claims that
Christ had preached for over TEN years! (book ii, c. 22, pp.
4,5).  In another place he makes Jesus fifty years old.
ISIS UNVEILED II. pp. 304-305.

I think you need to keep in mind that the winners write our
history.  Therefore if Blavatsky (who is on the side of the
losers in this case) can show that Irenaeus distorted gnostic
doctrines, then this would be very significant, because one would
expect such evidence to have disappeared a long time ago.

As to your Britannica entry saying that respect for Irenaeus
"increased," you might keep in mind the historical context of
this statement and how it relates to ISIS UNVEILED.  In 1877,
when ISIS was published, almost no gnostic mss were known to
exist.  Therefore, unbiased scholars had to suspect that any
statements made by the Church Fathers concerning gnosticism,
since they are the ones who had seen to it that the gnostic mss
were destroyed or buried.  When the Nag Hammadi mss (1948) were
finally translated in the 1970's the scholars found to their
surprise that the church fathers, including Irenaeus, were more
accurate concerning gnostic teachings than they had at first
assumed.  But this does not mean that the church father's
summaries of gnostic doctrines were not selective, or that they
by any stretch of the imagination intended to offer a scholarly
and unbiased account of the gnostic movements.  Their task was to
discredit and destroy the gnostic movement through debate, and
later by political force.  History shows that they succeeded in
their task.


JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------


From C.Carli@agora.stm.it Wed Jun 12 01:01:22 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 01:01:22 GMT
From: C.Carli@agora.stm.it
Message-Id: <199606120103.BAA16346@agora.stm.it>
Subject: Sai Baba


Hallo!

I want to know: who is Sai Baba for theosophists?
Is He the Master Jesus?

Thanks


By ATHANOR (Claudio Carli) Esonet National Coordinator

*************************************************************************

** Internet E-Mail: C.Carli@agora.stm.it			       ** ** Esonet WWW Page:
http://www.agora.stm.it/esonet/esomain.htm	 ** ** con la Grande Guida ai
Siti Esoterici su Internet !!!	       **
*************************************************************************


 --- MMMR v4.60unr *  +[periodo di prova scaduto da 11 giorni.]+


From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 23:10:57 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:10:57 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611191056_215334091@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: egregores

John,
I agree.  My homonculus makes great golems.  Of course they like to nibble on
the neighbors' children....

Chuck the Atrocious
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 23:11:02 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:11:02 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611191102_215334182@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy as a Thesaurus?

Alex,
Curses!  My secret is out!

Chuck the Ancient One MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 23:11:06 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:11:06 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611191105_215334138@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

Alex,
Keep trying.  The wall will break soon.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 23:10:53 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:10:53 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611191052_215334209@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: egregores

Alex,
But just think, if it weren't for the middle class bores and working class
morons, who would we have to feel superior to?

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 23:11:09 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:11:09 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611191108_215334254@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

Alan,
I didn't know Rich I was into THAT!!!!!

Chuck the Shocked MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 11 23:11:16 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:11:16 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960611191115_215334296@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy in Cyberspace

Doss,
YEECCCCH!

And now for another adventure of:

THEOSOPHISTS IN SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As you recall from the last time, several people at Olcott had eaten too many
beans and the resulting gas explosion propelled the building past the moon
out towards Mars.
Hearing of the disaster, Chuck and the Gang of Five boarded the Skylark of
Valeron, which they borrowed from the old science fiction writers' home for
decrepit plot lines and raced to the rescue only to find the headquarters
being attacked by the made dogs of Sirius.

To be continued
From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 11 23:12:45 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:12:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960611181515.227f1676@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: TSA Voting Tally Info - Update

Hi

Here is the letter from John Algeo which was mailed to me by snailmail.

My response to him, I posted this AM.

I faxed another letter to John Algeo today. I will post it shortly.

=================================================

                 Thursday, June 6, 1996

Dear Mr. Ramadoss:

        You will be pleased to know and I am pleased to be able to tell you
that the information you want is on its way to you.

        I am glad you like the little extracts I have been sending you. Such
passages can be inspirations and guides to our own lives. Here is another
from At the Feet of the Master you may find helpful:

===== excerpt from AFM ============

Sincerely yours,




John Algeo
========================= end of letter ============


	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 11 23:12:48 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:12:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960611181517.227f0198@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Followup on TSA Vote Tally Info

Hi

I FAXED the following letter to John Algeo. The letter is self-explanatory.

As of this posting (6.15 PM CDT), I am yet to hear from John or TSA.


=======================================================
FAX MESSAGE


June 11, 1996 1:42 PM


John Algeo
National President
Theosophical Society in America, Wheaton IL


Dear Bro. Algeo:

	As of this writing, I have not yet received the voting tally information
you promised to send. I do not know why I have not received it yet.

	I hope delay in your sending the details will not end up in my receiving it
concurrent with the next issue of AT or even the AT being received ahead of it.

	I would appreciate your enlightening me on this.

With fraternal greetings

Yours fraternally



M. K. Ramadoss


======================end of fax message============


	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 11 23:45:25 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:45:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Sai Baba
In-Reply-To: <199606120103.BAA16346@agora.stm.it>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 C.Carli@agora.stm.it wrote:
>
> Hallo!
>
> I want to know: who is Sai Baba for theosophists?
> Is He the Master Jesus?

	No one knows. He could be anybody.



    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 12 04:29:59 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 04:29:59 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606120427.XAA19697@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy

Kay Konstantin, a Theosophist from Russia make this very interesting
comment on FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) - a terminology widely
used in cyberspace. If anyone has ASCII file of the Key to T, we can
post it as a series of posts and it is likely to be widely read. Each
message can have names and addresses of Theosophy organizations where
interested individuals can contact by phone, e-mail or  snailmail. I
just posted the following in alt.theosophy


In alt.theosophy, ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss) wrote:


>A very perceptive Theosophist from Russia mentioned that Key to
>Theosophy by H P Blavatsky is the world's first FAQ.

>I think Key to Theosophy is available in ASCII format. We can try to
>upload it as a series of FAQ and it would be very helpful and widely
>accessed.

>Anyone any ideas?


>MKR

>Peace to all living beings.



Peace to all living beings.

From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Wed Jun 12 04:49:44 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:49:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Theosophy in Cyberspace
In-Reply-To: <960611191115_215334296@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:
>
> THEOSOPHISTS IN SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> As you recall from the last time, several people at Olcott had eaten too many
> beans and the resulting gas explosion propelled the building past the moon
> out towards Mars.
> Hearing of the disaster, Chuck and the Gang of Five boarded the Skylark of
> Valeron, which they borrowed from the old science fiction writers' home for
> decrepit plot lines and raced to the rescue only to find the headquarters
> being attacked by the mad dogs of Sirius.

Before they could get there, however, Olcott had already mounted a
spirited defense - threatening the Sirian dogs with what is widely
regarded as one of the most terrifying weapons in this galaxy: A
Theosophical Summer Convention. The mad dogs at first fought valiantly,
and seemed to be gaining ground when Olcott brought out the Big Gun - The
Topic Announcement: "Reincarnation; I was Morya's gigglebunny in my last
life". The dogs instantly fled and were last seen yelping towards the
Andromeda galaxy. At which point Olcott immediately declared itself "a
humble school of the mysteries in the Sirian system" and sued the nearest
planet.
From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Jun 12 05:50:27 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:50:27 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606120550.WAA17457@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Review of what Dr. M., A.D. and D. DeG. have written on OOBEs and PSI, with  additional comments by Daniel Caldwell

***************************************************************
Various comments have been made by Dr. Mike Mueckler
on the "reality" of out-of-the-body- experiences and psychic
phenomena. [Only excerpts given.  Originally posted on alt.religion.eckankar]

Dr. Mueckler writes:
>>>As someone who has experienced this phenomenon of OOBE=soul travel=astral
>projection=lucid dreaming for some 25 years (they are all the same), I
>have discussed this in detail before on this newsgroup.  Neither I nor
>anyone else has ever produced evidence for knowledge at a distance during
>a lucid dream or out of the body experience.  Period.  Including tests
>conducted under laboratory conditions.  Experiments with brain probing
>indicate that the OOBE is a mental state that can be reproduced by the
>excitation of certain regions of the brain.
.......
To a trained observer, this [testimony of OOBEs and Near Death Experiences]
is not evidence, it is closer to fable, story
telling or wishful thinking.  People lie, exaggerate, bend the truth, and
convince themselves of things that never happened. There are perfectly
rational explanations for all of these cases when one takes the reality of
human fallibility into consideration.  When the heart stops beating, the
brain continues to function for many minutes.  If it didn't the people
really would be dead and would not be capable of being resuscitated.
Visual and auditory sensory inputs during this state can be processed and
translated into dream like images.  Nothing mysterious about it at all.
We know that the perception of disembodiment can be induced by sensory
deprivation and electrical stimulation.  Hypoxia probably induces a
similar state under the right circumstances.  Trivial.
.................
>   Of course, I am very familiar with the *claims* of positive
>results--these are a combination of statistical blips, wishful thinking,
>sloppy, uncontrolled experiments, faulty equipment, and forgery and
>fakery. Indeed, the entire field of parapsychology has been rife with
>these unfortunate occurrences.  Every time the so-called positive
>experiments have been repeated by others using a proper protocol, the
>"positive" results vanish.  If you saw some of the so-called "positive"
>data, most of you would wince and say, so what?  We are not talking about
>demonstrating the existence of the soul--rather, observing something like
>a tiny deviation from the statistical norm using Psi cards or the like.  A
>Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Ernst Rutheford, once said--if you have to
>use statistics to prove something--go back and design the experiment
>properly! If a certain type of experiment is repeated often enough, the
>outcome will come out "positive" a certain percentage of the time.
...........
>One last thing.  It is certainly possible that my materialistic views are
>completely wrong.  Scientific theories are constantly in a state of flux
>as we gather more data. I would place the odds that I am wrong in this
>regard at one in a thousand or less. Religion has been given a fair shake
>for millenia, and has proven to be a miserable failure at explaining
>anything.  The further we advance in our knowledge of the universe, the
>more religious viewpoints have to be abandoned. The odds are getting less
>and less every day.

[end of Dr. Mueckler's comments]

****************************************************************************
******

[The above comments were reposted on theos-l (a theosophical discussion
list).  I give below a few comments by Alexis Dolgorukii on Dr. Mueckler's
above statements and Dr. Don DeGracia's replies to what Mr. Dolgorukii
had written.  Alexis Dolgorukii wrote]:

My only problem with the "scientific facts" behind the statements of Dr.
Mueckler is based upon the fairly obvious perception that they are based
upon the a priori rejection of ANY AND ALL extra-physical or trans-physical
phenomena.

[Dr. Don DeGracia  replies to Dolgorukii]:

Part of this attitude amongst scientists reflects the historical roots of
science: science grew as a counter-cultural movement to the unthinking dogma of
the Medieval Church.  And, like a brash teenager trying to proove his own,
science rejected its connection to spirutal truths.  Although, this is not true
in general.  Many great scientists, including Newton, Einstein, and many others
were imminently spiritual men, and saw science in a spritual light.

Another part of this attitude has to do with finding the least complicated
explanation. Science is driven by Ocam's razor, which is to find the simplest
explanation for a phenomena.  When  this fails, more complicated explanations
are then invoked.  Necessity drives this process, not fancy or speculation.  The
history of science is replete with such examples.

Thus, to attribute OBEs as phenomena created by the brain is the simplest
explanation, and also the most obvious.  It is a starting point, and a good one
that has worked well for the past several decades in which this paradigm has
been used.  Again however,  Dr. Mueckler simply has a bad attitude to come off
as if these issues are all black and white.

Even Manly Hall himself has said that we should not try to invoke super-physical
explanations when a physical explanation will suffice.  This of course is
different from rejecting spirituality in any sense, which is a mistake many
scientists make.  Scientists who flat out reject spirituality simply expose
their ignorance and lack of depth and subtlety.
.......
It is...unfortunate that occultists feel justified to
ignore the knowldege of the brain without first studying it and trying to
understand it.  I used to hold this attitude, but I was force to learn about the
brain in my PhD program, and what i learned so fascinated me that I now am
enamored with the study of the brain.  I can literally think of no more
interesting topic.  The brain is a vast mystery and to dismiss its study so
nonchalantly only reveals that you are not well informed about our current state
of knowledge of the brain and mind.

The brain and mind are two different views of the exact same thing.  The mind is
not different from the brain.  The mind is a process created by the brain.  Now,
this does not need to imply that there is no mind that transcends brains, as for
example, with the occult idea of the mental plane.  From another angle, God's
mind created not only the brain, but the entire physical world.

All I am saying is do not sell yourself short by rejecting ideas with which you
have no familiarity.  If your brain was to become damaged either by trauma,
stroke or other means, you would quickly appreciate the significance of the
brain in the action of the mind.  I hope it never comes to this and that you can
simply open your mind to current knowledge and discover intellectually just how
important the brain is for the operation of your mind.
.............................
I use to believe that the brain was merely a channel for our non-physical self.
I no longer belief this idea.  I consider the idea, but I do not believe it.
What I do know, and have seen in hospital settings is that people who experience
brain damage undergo drastic changes in their mental and psychological
functioning.

To me, the crux of the matter always rested on dreams.  Dreams, supposedly are
our nonphysical experiences, or at least some of them are.  The fact is however,
when people suffer symptoms of brain damage, these symptoms are also present in
their dreams.  If our dreams were, say, our astral body acting
semi-independently of the physical body, there is no reason to believe that
brain damage would affect the action of the astral body.  However, brain damage
symptoms do occur in the person's dreams, indicating that dreams themselves are
a product of the brain.

This idea leads to a very different line of thought than the traditional occult
view that seperates physical and nonphyscal bodies.  Instead of simply rejecting
this view because it appears to counterdict what you presently believe, I would
recommend opening up to this view, even if it does challange your present
believes.   I have discovered, and unfortunately, again do not have time to
dwell on this issue, that the idea that the brain creates our conscious
awareness is not contradictory to traditional occult ideas of transcendental
realities.  however, by mixing the two viewpoints, a new viewpoint emerges that
is substantially different than either alone, and, not suprisingly, is a view in
complete harmony with the great mystical and religious truths of the aeons.

[Then Alexis makes another comment relevant to what Dr. Mueckler had wrote:]

But as they deal with matters spiritual they are not, and never
will be totally amenable to "scientific proof" at least not in the current
state of scientists. Any investigation, of any subject, must be open and
unbiased.....

[Don replies to Alexis as follows]:

And the flip side to this is, again, that you, or people with similar interests
and background, make the effort to familiarize yourself with current evidence
and thinking.  You will see that scientific ideas are not biased, that they are
driven by necessity (for example, trying to determine how to treat a victum of
brain damage).  You must ask yourself: as an occultiust who makes a claim to
understanding the human constitustion, how would you personally deal with a
person who has suffered brain damage?  How would your ideas be of practical
value in helping such a person?

[end of Alexis' and Don's comments.]

************************************************************

[Daniel Caldwell's comments on all of the above are as follows:

I must say that I agree with the thrust of Alexis' comments.
In his comments to Alexis, Don urges Alexis to "familiarize
yourself with current evidence and thinking."  But considering
the other side of the coin, I have no idea how
 knowledgeable Don is with the parapsychological literature.  I have
studied this field of endeavor for more than
20 years, and I find that far too many scientists know little
if anything about parapsychology and its findings.  Also I have
found that the scientific community
has a prejudice against the STUDY of psychic phenomena.
This is also the opinion of Dr. Ray Hyman, one of the foremost
critics of parapsychology.  Dr. Hyman has written:

"...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological
claims *without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence.*
"*Very few* of the scientific critics have examined *even one* of the
many experimental reports of psychic phenomena.
"Even *fewer, if any*, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological
literature....
"*Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint
that the scientific community is dismissing their claims *without a
fair hearing*....."  [asterisks added.]

Don also writes:  "It is...unfortunate that occultists feel justified to
ignore the knowldege of the brain without first studying it and trying to
understand it."  But conversely (to paraphrase Don)
it is unfortunate that scientists feel justifed to ignore the knowledge of
the paranormal without first studying it and trying to understand it.  So, Don,
 won't you agree with me, that maybe more scientists need to (at least)
familiarize themselves with the findings of parapsychology?

I agree 100% with Don when he writes:
"Dr. Mueckler simply has a bad attitude to come off
as if these issues are all black and white."

As I have read Dr. Mueckler's posts on alt.religion.eckankar, I have come
to the tentative conclusion that Dr. M. is as much a TRUE DIS-BELIEVER
as many of the Eckists he criticizes are TRUE BELIEVERS!

Furthermore, notice the dogmatic nature of Dr. Mueckler's following
statement:
"Neither I nor anyone else has ever produced evidence for
knowledge at a distance during a lucid dream or out of the body experience...."

How does he know all of this?  Maybe HE has never produced such
evidence, but how can he speak for the whole of humanity?
I personally have had a number of OOBEs.  Most of these
I would concede offer no  evidence of knowledge at a distance.  They
could be the product of my "imagination", just hallucination or a lucid
dream.  But I have had SOME OOBEs in which I gained knowledge at a
distance and on three occasions my presence was noticed by the people
at the distant locations.  I know directly that these are the facts.  I cannot
produce these experiences on demand; nevertheless, I know they happened
as much as I know that I am at this very moment sitting at my keyboard
typing these words on the screen.  And I concede that my "personal"
knowledge is not "scientific" knowledge.  No doubt, Dr. M. would have
some sort of possible explanation for my experiences.  I lied; I somehow mixed
things up, etc. etc. My experience cannot be taken at face value, according
to Dr. M.'s dictim.

Dr. Mueckler writes:  " People lie, exaggerate, bend the truth, and
convince themselves of things that never happened. There are perfectly
rational explanations for all of these cases when one takes the reality of
human fallibility into consideration."  Yes, Dr. M.,  SOME people do lie,
SOME exaggerate and bend the truth, and SOME convince themselves of things
that never happened.  But it is also true that SOME people do NOT lie,
SOME do NOT exaggerate, SOME do NOT bend the truth, etc.  And maybe sometimes
there are no perfectly "rational" explanation for ALL these cases.  And
human fallibility??  The deficiences of human testimony are to be recognized.
But we have in our daily lives and in law courts learned to estimate the
varying value of evidence, and in other departments of life, we do not
helplessly refrain from seeking truth because of the fallibility of human
testimony.  You have great FAITH in the assumption that ALL witnesses
to the paranormal are bound to be hopelessly misled (when not misleading!).
It is simply illogical to reason that because some percipients were
mistaken on this or that occasion, all witnesses must henceforth be
deemed unreliable.  The person or skeptic who demands "reliable"
testimony is under an obligation to state explicitly what he will
accept as reliable.  Reliability should be seen as a matter of
degree and seldom if ever *absolutely* reliable.  Complete rejection as well
as uncritical acceptance of eyewitness testimony (whatever the subject matter)
are both counterproductive responses to the delicate evaluation needed
of such testimony.

But there are many other cases (anecdotal and some
experiemental) which confirm my own OOB experiences.  Now I am not asking
anyone to blindly believe any of this, but science should be willing to
STUDY such phenomena without the kind of attitude displayed by Dr. M.

In regards to Dr. M.'s dismissive comments on the whole field of parapsychology,
I reproduce BELOW  relevant material written by Dr. Brian Josephson and
Dr. Jessica Utts.  I agree with what these two individuals write and I offer
this material as food for thought to those who want to neither blindly
believe or dis-believe in the paranormal.  This material is from the WWW
and I give the URL addresses.  I will give later the URL address for
a comprehensive bibliography
on these subjects as compiled by Dr. Daniel Kortenkamp.

Don, could you please provide us with some of the references
to brain research, etc, which you alluded to in your postings to Alexis?

Daniel H. Caldwell

**********************************************************************
>  Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate, is professor of physics,
> University of Cambridge, and heads the Mind-Matter Unification Project at
> the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.
>

Subject: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/martian.html

>                   Letter sent to Nature, May 2, 1996:
>                   [by Dr. Brian Josephson]
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> An intelligent observer, knowledgeable of the guiding principle of
> science that the crucial means to distinguish truth from falsehood are
> those of experiment, but unfamiliar with the notion that paranormal
> phenomena are 'impossible', would raise his eyebrows on coming upon
> the following assertions, made recently by two supposedly reputable
> scientists:
>
> (i) Crane (1) suggests we can save ourselves the trouble of looking at
> claims of the paranormal by invoking Hume's argument that it is more
> reasonable to believe that human error lies behind such claims than it
> is to 'believe that some fundamental law of nature has been
> disrupted'.
>
> (ii) Hyman, for the purposes of dismissing apparently strong evidence
> for a 'remote viewing' capability (2, 3), asserts somewhat similarly
> that no matter how many investigations of the paranormal, carried out
> by whatever means, yield positive results, there will still be no
> proof that the alleged phenomena occur.
>
> In response to enquiries as to why the usual mechanisms of science
> should be abandoned in this special context, our observer would be
> directed to study Soul Searching (Leaps of Faith in the U.S.) by
> Nicholas Humphrey (comment (i) comes from Crane's review of this book)
> in order to understand why claims of the paranormal are not taken
> seriously by scientists. But a subversive parapsychologist would
> suggest looking also at the review by Josephson (4), whereupon our
> friend would realise that Humphrey's arguments were flawed and hence
> of no value. He would study also some of the original research (5),
> and wonder whether possibly the scientists were making a monumental
> error in condemning it so vehemently.
>
> That scientists at large do not come to the same conclusions as our
> mythical observer stems, I believe, from two main factors, whose
> existence mocks the claim of science to be the agent of unveiling the
> truth however strange that truth may appear: 'received knowledge',
> reinforced by the activities of propagandists; and the publishing
> policies of journals, which limit very effectively the acquaintance
> that the ordinary scientist has with parapsychological research, and
> thereby make informed assessment of the work in general effectively
> impossible.
>
> To provide readers with a better perspective with which to evaluate
> the evidence, I append to this letter some key references. In
> addition, for the benefit of those with World Wide Web access I have
> created a parapsychlogy page with links to the text of some of these
> and to sites where more information may be obtained.
>
> (1) Crane, T. Nature 379, 685 (1996)
>
> (2) Lehrman, S. Nature 378, 525 (1995)
>
> (3) The assessments of this research, including that of Hyman, can be
> found in J. Sci. Exploration, 10(1), 3-62 (1996); see also home page
> of Jessica Utts
>
> (4) Josephson, B.D. Times Higher Educ. Supp. 1206, 19 (1995)
>
> (5) Bem, D. J. and C. Honorton, Does psi exist? Replicable evidence
> for an anomalous process of information transfer, Psych. Bull. 115(1),
> 4-18 (1994); Utts, J., Replication and meta-analysis in
> parapsychology, Stat. Sci. 6, 363-403 (1991); D. I. Radin and R. D.
> Nelson, Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random
> physical systems, Found. Phys. 19, 1499-1514 (1989).
>
> Brian D. Josephson
> Cavendish Laboratory,
> Madingley Road,
> Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nature's considered response was that...[my] letter dealt with 'matters
> of opinion rather than fact', and therefore would be 'insufficiently
> persuasive to be of compelling interest to [its] readers'.


***************************************************************************

> Jessica Utts is professor of statistics, University of California, Davis,
> and was one of two experts commissioned by the CIA to review the
> two-decade U.S. government psychic research programme in the Summer of
> 1995.  She has recently published a book, _Seeing Through Statistics_,
> Duxbury Press, 1996, designed to improve understanding of statistical
> studies.


Subject: http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/response.html

> Response to Ray Hyman's Report of September 11, 1995 "Evaluation of
> Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena"
>                                    by
>                              Jessica Utts
>                         Division of Statistics
>                     University of California, Davis
>                           September 15, 1995
>
> Ray Hyman's report of September 11, 1995, written partially in
> response to my report of September 1, 1995 elucidates the issues on
> which he and I agree and disagree. I basically concur with his
> assessment of where we agree and disagree, but there are three issues
> he raises with regard to the scientific status of parapsychology to
> which I would like to respond.
>
> 1. "Only parapsychology, among the fields of inquiry claiming
> scientific status, lacks a cumulative database (p. 6)."
>
> It is simply not true that parapsychology lacks a cumulative database.
> In fact, the accumulated database is truly impressive for a science
> that has had so few resources. While critics are fond of relating, as
> Professor Hyman does in his report, that there has been "more than a
> century of parapsychological research (p. 7)" psychologist Sybo
> Schouten (1993, p. 316) has noted that the total human and financial
> resources devoted to parapsychology since 1882 is at best equivalent
> to the expenditures devoted to fewer than two months of research in
> conventional psychology in the United States.
>
> On pages 4 and 5 of their September 29, 1994 SAIC final report, May,
> Luke and James summarize four reports that do precisely what Professor
> Hyman claims is not done in parapsychology; they put forth the
> accumulated evidence for anomalous cognition in a variety of formats.
> Rather than dismissing the former experiments, parapsychologists build
> on them. As in any area of science, it is of course the most recent
> experiments that receive the most attention, but that does not mean
> that the field would divorce itself from past work. Quite to the
> contrary, past experimental results and methodological weaknesses are
> used to design better and more efficient experiments.
>
> As an example of the normal progress of inquiry expected in any area
> of science, the autoganzfeld experiments currently conducted by
> parapsychologists did not simply spring out of thin air. The original
> ganzfeld experiments followed from Honorton's observation at
> Maimonides Medical Center, that anomalous cognition seemed to work
> well in dreams. He investigated ways in which a similar state could be
> achieved in normal waking hours, and found the ganzfeld regime in
> another area of psychology. The automated ganzfeld followed from a
> critical evaluation of the earlier ganzfeld experiments, and a set of
> conditions agreed upon by Honorton and Professor Hyman. The current
> use of dynamic targets in autoganzfeld experiments follows from the
> observation that they were more successful than static targets in the
> initial experiments. The investigation of entropy at SAIC follows from
> this observation as well. This is just one example of how current
> experiments are built from past results.
>
> 2. "Only parapsychology claims to be a science on the basis of
> phenomena (or a phenomenon) whose presence can be detected only by
> rejecting a null hypothesis (p. 8)."
>
> While it is true that parapsychology has not figured out all the
> answers, it does not differ from normal science in this regard. It is
> the norm of scientific progress to make observations first, and then
> to attempt to explain them. Before quantum mechanics was developed
> there were a number of anomalies observed in physics that could not be
> explained. There are many observations in physics and in the social
> and medical sciences that can be observed, either statistically or
> deterministically, but which cannot be explained.
>
> As a more recent example, consider the impact of electromagnetic
> fields on health. An article in Science (Vol. 269, 18 August 1995, p.
> 911) reported that "After spending nearly a decade reviewing the
> literature on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), a panel of the National
> Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has produced a
> draft report concluding that some health effects linked to EMFs such
> as cancer and immune deficiencies appear real and warrant steps to
> reduce EMF exposure... Biologists have failed to pinpoint a convincing
> mechanism of action." In other words, a statistical effect has been
> convincingly established and it is now the responsibility of science
> to attempt to establish its mechanism, just as in parapsychology.
>
> As yet another example, consider learning and memory, which have long
> been studied in psychology. We know they exist, but brain researchers
> are just beginning to understand how they work by using sophisticated
> brain imaging techniques. Psychologists do not understand these simple
> human capabilities, and they certainly do not understand other
> observable human phenomena such as what causes people to fall in love.
> Yet, no one would deny the existence of these phenomena just because
> we do not understand them.
>
> In any area involving the natural variability inherent in humans,
> science progresses by first observing a statistical difference and
> then attempting to explain it. At this stage, I believe parapsychology
> has convincingly demonstrated that an effect is present, and future
> research attempts should be directed at finding an explanation. In
> this regard parapsychology in on par with scientific questions like
> the impact of electromagnetic fields on health, or the cross-cultural
> differences in memory that have been observed by psychologists.
>
> 3. "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does
> not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the
> expectation that they will observe the original results (p. 18)."
>
> I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, I can name
> other phenomena for which students could not be expected to do a
> simple experiment and observe a result, such as the connection between
> taking aspirin and preventing heart attacks or the connection between
> smoking and getting lung cancer. What differentiates these phenomena
> from simple experiments like splitting light with a prism is that the
> effects are statistical in nature and are not expected to occur every
> single time. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but we can
> predict the proportion who will. Not everyone who attempts anomalous
> cognition will be successful, but I think we can predict the
> proportion of time success should be achieved.
>
> Since I believe the probability of success has been established in the
> autoganzfeld experiments, I would offer them as the exemplar Professor
> Hyman requests. The problem is that to be relatively assured of a
> successful outcome requires several hundred trials, and no student has
> the resources to commit to this experiment. As I have repeatedly tried
> to explain to Professor Hyman and others, when dealing with a small to
> medium effect it takes hundreds or sometimes thousands of trials to
> establish "statistical significance." In fact, the Physicians Health
> Study that initially established the link between taking aspirin and
> reducing heart attacks studied over 22,000 men. Had it been conducted
> on only 2,200 men with the same reduction in heart attacks, it would
> not have achieved statistical significance. Should students be
> required to recruit 22,000 participants and conduct such an experiment
> before we believe the connection between aspirin and heart attacks is
> real?
>
> Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology
> lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform
> an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring
> success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take
> on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as
> described in my original report.
>
> Reference:
> Schouten, Sybo (1993). "Are we making progress?" In Psi Research
> Methodology: A Re-examination, Proceedings of an International
> Conference, Oct 29-30, 1988, edited by L. Coly and J. McMahon, NY:
> Parapsychology Foundation, Inc., pgs. 295-322.

***************************************************************************




From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 12 06:16:29 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:16:29 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960612061629.006b6c04@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy is a Coined Term

At 07:13 PM 6/11/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Keep trying.  The wall will break soon.
>
>Chuck
>
>Tonight we tried On John's computer via a brand new AOL 3? Response?
"Invalid address".

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 12 06:17:30 1996
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:17:30 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960612061730.006ab390@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: egregores

At 07:13 PM 6/11/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>But just think, if it weren't for the middle class bores and working class
>morons, who would we have to feel superior to?
>
>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>The upper-class morons and bores! Of course!

alexis

From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 12 17:07:09 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:07:09 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960612130708_215838819@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

Claudio,
Not wishing to give offense, I doubt that many theosophists would consider
Sai Baba to be the Master Jesus.
There are some who would say he is an interesting teacher.
 And to some of us he is not the master anything.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 12 17:07:54 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:07:54 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960612130752_215839242@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

Doss,
Judging from the magic tricks, he may be the incarnation of the Ascended
Master Harry Blackstone Sr..

Chuck the Skeptic
Heretic
Troublemaker
"Anyone can make ash appear from a big sleeve.  Now a complete Thanksgiving
dinner, that's a good trick!"


From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 12 17:48:03 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:48:03 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960612174803.006ddef0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Review of what Dr. M., A.D. and D. DeG. have written on
  OOBEs and PSI, with  additional comments by Daniel Caldwell

At 01:55 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:

>[The above comments were reposted on theos-l (a theosophical discussion
>list).  I give below a few comments by Alexis Dolgorukii on Dr. Mueckler's
>above statements and Dr. Don DeGracia's replies to what Mr. Dolgorukii
>had written.  Alexis Dolgorukii wrote]:
>
>My only problem with the "scientific facts" behind the statements of Dr.
>Mueckler is based upon the fairly obvious perception that they are based
>upon the a priori rejection of ANY AND ALL extra-physical or trans-physical
>phenomena.

I'd like to add that reading Dr. Mueckler's comments gave me, at least, the
impression that the simplest answer is that Dr. Mueckler is a terribly
disgruntled man with an "axe to grind". His words are far too pejorative in
flavor to be the unbiased scientific comments they should be if he were valid.>

>[Dr. Don DeGracia  replies to Dolgorukii]:
>
>
>Another part of this attitude has to do with finding the least complicated
>explanation. Science is driven by Ocam's razor, which is to find the simplest
>explanation for a phenomena.  When  this fails, more complicated explanations
>are then invoked.  Necessity drives this process, not fancy or speculation.
The
>history of science is replete with such examples.
>
I completely disagree. The simplest answer, the most parsimonious answer, is
that the people who report such experiences are telling the truth. The
so-called "scientific" explanation is not only terribly complicated and
elaborately constructed, but is based upon the a priori decision that people
who report various OOBEs are either lying, insane, stupid, of ignorant or
some combination of the fore going. The so-called "scientific proof" is
based upon the utterly unfounded assumption that "these people cannot be
telling the truth" and "If that is so, what can the explanation be" ergo an
"explanation" gets manufactured.

alexis dolgorukii

And now I really have to register a complaint about the rudeness of the
Blavatsky Foundation and it's personator Daniel Caldwell:
In a bracketed line above [Dr.Don DeGracia replies to Dolgorukii.}
Mr.Caldwell in his impersonation of "The Blavatsky Foundation" commits a
fairly socially barbarous act. It is an act of extreme disrespect to refer
to one person by their unmodified last name (viz. "Dolgorukii") while
referring to another person by full name and title (viz: Dr. Don De Gracia)
I strongly resent the implications of total disrespect and would like to see
an apology. I am beginning to think that Paul Johnson is perfectly correct
in his opinion regarding Daniel Caldwell.

alexis Dolgorukii

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 12 17:58:54 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:58:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960612130124.21971c96@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

At 01:22 PM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>Judging from the magic tricks, he may be the incarnation of the Ascended
>Master Harry Blackstone Sr..
>
>Chuck the Skeptic
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>"Anyone can make ash appear from a big sleeve.  Now a complete Thanksgiving
>dinner, that's a good trick!"

Chuck:

Sai Baba appeals to many. I lived several years in Bangalore and he has his
ashram about 30 miles from there. He never appealed to me. May be because of
my Theosophical background, I did not equate creating ash or anything else
to any high degree of spiritual evolution. To me he was not charismatic. It
is also possible that many who have gone to him with physical, emotional or
personal problems, he may have helped and they are very grateful. I at least
do not see any signs of an Adept (in Theosophical sense) in him.


        ....doss



	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 12 18:21:02 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:21:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: HPB in Tibet
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I just received Ergates. In it is a very interesting article which deals
with the issue of HPB and her visit to Tibet. It appears that more
positive and definitive evidence may be coming up corroborating her visit
to Tibet. If the evidence can be developed, it may shock some of those
unbelivers of HPB visiting Tibet and learning at the feet of the Adepts.
I will try to excerpt it later this evening and post it here.


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 12 18:42:09 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:42:09 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606122044.AB26740@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy

At 12:33 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Kay Konstantin, a Theosophist from Russia make this very interesting
>comment on FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) - a terminology widely
>used in cyberspace. If anyone has ASCII file of the Key to T, we can
>post it as a series of posts and it is likely to be widely read.

Sounds like a good idea, Could it also be made available as an HTML
document, on the web. To arrange a place for it does not have to cost
anything, or almost. I could volunteer to put it on a web server, but would
prefer if someone else did it. Anybody interested in working with texts such
as these, adding links, comments, etc to create a nice and welcoming
environment for interested people to find out more about theosophy?

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 12 21:25:32 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:25:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <9606122044.AB26740@alpinet.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


If we could get ASCII text, we can check with John E Mead, owner of
theos-l to see if he could add to the web he has already setup. FAQ is
likely to be indexed in all the search engines and we can expect quite a
few inquirers visiting it.



On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote:

> At 12:33 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >Kay Konstantin, a Theosophist from Russia make this very interesting
> >comment on FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) - a terminology widely
> >used in cyberspace. If anyone has ASCII file of the Key to T, we can
> >post it as a series of posts and it is likely to be widely read.
>
> Sounds like a good idea, Could it also be made available as an HTML
> document, on the web. To arrange a place for it does not have to cost
> anything, or almost. I could volunteer to put it on a web server, but would
> prefer if someone else did it. Anybody interested in working with texts such
> as these, adding links, comments, etc to create a nice and welcoming
> environment for interested people to find out more about theosophy?
>
> Bjorn
>
> roxendal@alpinet.net
>
>


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Jun 12 21:54:38 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:54:38 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606122154.OAA10758@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Review of what Dr. M., A.D. and D. DeG.:  an Apology?

Alexis,
I will gladly give to you an apology.  But there was no intention to
insult you.  Notice that I also said "Mr. Dolgorukii."  I should have
just called everyone by their last name!  Please don't be offended.
I even said I agreed with everything you had written!  Late last night
I was trying to cut and paste all of this together from 5 different
messages and trying to spell everybody's names right.  I even
had to go back to previous messages and look up the correct
spelling of your last name as well as Mueckler's (Dr. that is!).  There
was no intention to insult you; I was focusing all my attention on
Dr. M.'s contentions.  You can address me as Caldwell anyday of
the week.  I just hate to be called Mr. Caldwell!

Do you have a hair trigger temper?

Daniel

P.S.  Ohhhhhhh, ohhhhhhhh, what is P.J.'s opinion of me?  :  )   :  )

>
>>[The above comments were reposted on theos-l (a theosophical discussion
>>list).  I give below a few comments by Alexis Dolgorukii on Dr. Mueckler's
>>above statements and Dr. Don DeGracia's replies to what Mr. Dolgorukii
>>had written.  Alexis Dolgorukii wrote]:

>>[Dr. Don DeGracia  replies to Dolgorukii]:
>>
>And now I really have to register a complaint about the rudeness of the
>Blavatsky Foundation and it's personator Daniel Caldwell:
>In a bracketed line above [Dr.Don DeGracia replies to Dolgorukii.}
>Mr.Caldwell in his impersonation of "The Blavatsky Foundation" commits a
>fairly socially barbarous act. It is an act of extreme disrespect to refer
>to one person by their unmodified last name (viz. "Dolgorukii") while
>referring to another person by full name and title (viz: Dr. Don De Gracia)
>I strongly resent the implications of total disrespect and would like to see
>an apology. I am beginning to think that Paul Johnson is perfectly correct
>in his opinion regarding Daniel Caldwell.
>
>alexis Dolgorukii
>
>
>

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 12 20:34:52 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:34:52 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606122237.AB27936@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy

At 06:01 PM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>If we could get ASCII text, we can check with John E Mead, owner of
>theos-l to see if he could add to the web he has already setup. FAQ is
>likely to be indexed in all the search engines and we can expect quite a
>few inquirers visiting it.

Sounds like a plan. As long as it is on a disc we can convert it into ASCII
from just about anything. Who has the text?


Bjorn


roxendal@alpinet.net

From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 12 23:14:05 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:14:05 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960612191404_555003557@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Theosophy in Cyberspace

As Olcott prepared to sue the Sirians they responded by calling forth the
Master Jesus, who took the form of Sai Bababooey and deluged the orbiting
building with ashes, causing several staff members to wonder is someone was
repeating a previous incarnation and burning the books again.
At this point, the Gang of Five had finally figured out how to get the
Skylark of Valeron running (they had to crank start it like an ancient Model
T) and went racing towards Sirius with psionic disruptors armed and kundalini
blasters ready.  These proved unnecessary as when it was discovered who was
firing the ashes, an holographic projection was fired of a man holding a
hammer and nails.  The Master Jesus took one look at the projection, shouted
"Not that again!" and disappeared back through his hole in the space-time
continuum.
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 12 23:14:40 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:14:40 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960612191439_555004263@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: egregores

Alex,
Upper class morons and bores...yes, I forgot, silly me.

Chuck
 forever to bring up newsgroups. What
do you think of AOL 3?

Chuck
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 21:42:57 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:42:57 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Theosophy in Cyberspace
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In view of the serious nature of the situation, the Masters have called
for a meeting of the UN Security Council.  One of the Masters is
reported as saying the whole thing is a storm in a buried tea cup.

In message , JRC
 writes
>On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> THEOSOPHISTS IN SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> As you recall from the last time, several people at Olcott had eaten too many
>> beans and the resulting gas explosion propelled the building past the moon
>> out towards Mars.
>> Hearing of the disaster, Chuck and the Gang of Five boarded the Skylark of
>> Valeron, which they borrowed from the old science fiction writers' home for
>> decrepit plot lines and raced to the rescue only to find the headquarters
>> being attacked by the mad dogs of Sirius.
>
>Before they could get there, however, Olcott had already mounted a
>spirited defense - threatening the Sirian dogs with what is widely
>regarded as one of the most terrifying weapons in this galaxy: A
>Theosophical Summer Convention. The mad dogs at first fought valiantly,
>and seemed to be gaining ground when Olcott brought out the Big Gun - The
>Topic Announcement: "Reincarnation; I was Morya's gigglebunny in my last
>life". The dogs instantly fled and were last seen yelping towards the
>Andromeda galaxy. At which point Olcott immediately declared itself "a
>humble school of the mysteries in the Sirian system" and sued the nearest
>planet.

---------
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 Jun 11 23:53:11 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:53:11 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL02.TXT - The Ladbeater Affair
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL02.TXT

Introduction

In my previous introduction to "The Leadbeater Affair" published as
CWL01.TXT mention was necessarily made of a letter from Annie Besant to
the members of the T.S. of November 1908.  This text reproduces that
letter.  It is an eminently reasonable plea for justice, eloquently
worded by a skilled orator. It was not, however, accepted at face value
by all of its readers for reasons which will become apparent.  Some
members clearly saw, whether rightly or wrongly, that a skilled writer
and speaker might also be a skilled manipulator, and in a reply dated
the same month as this letter, G.R.S.Mead. Herbert Burrows, W.Kingsland
and Edith Ward sought to show that this was indeed the case.

This will become CWL03.TXT as the next article in this study and
research exercise.

Alan Bain, June 1996

---------
A LETTER

TO THE MEMBERS OF

THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

FROM

ANNIE BESANT,

President of the Theosophical Society.

PRINTED AND ISSUED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY BY ANNIE BESANT, 31 ST. JAMES'S PLACE, LONDON, S.W.
NOVEMBER, 1908.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE T.S.

AN appeal has been made to the General Council and to myself, by the
British Section in Convention assembled, to take action to put an end to
the painful condition of affairs which has arisen in consequence of
certain "pernicious teaching" ascribed to Mr. C. W. Leadbeater. The
General Council does not meet until December next, and will then take
such action as it may deem right. The appeal to myself I answer, after
such delay as has been imposed on me by the fact that I was in the
Antipodes, on the Society's business, when the appeal was made, and
could not complete my reply until I had verified certain data by
reference to documents not then within my reach.

My wish is to lift the present controversy out of the turmoil of passion
in which all sense of proportion has been lost, and to submit the whole
case to the judgment of the Theosophical Society, free from the
exaggerations and misunderstandings which have surrounded it. I
recognise fully that those who denounce Mr. Leadbeater are inspired, for
the most part, by all intense desire to protect the purity of public
morals and the good name of the Society, and are therefore worthy of
respect. I ask them to believe that others may have an equal love of
purity and of the Society's good name, while not accepting their view of
Mr. Leadbeater's advice, and while considering that they have been
misled by exaggerated and distorted statements, as I was myself. I even
ask them whether they seriously think that I, after nearly twenty years
of unstinted labor for the Society, and of a life more ascetic than lax,
am likely to be indifferent either to purity or to the Society's good
name? I ask them to give credit to others for good intent, as they claim
good intent for themselves.

 From the occult standpoint, the duality of sex represents the
fundamental duality of the universe, and in the individual human being
the duality once existed, as it still exists in the universe and in some
forms of vegetable and animal life. The separation of humanity into two
sexes, in each of which one sex predominates and the other is
rudimentary, is but a temporary device for the better development of
complementary qualities, difficult of simultaneous evolution in the same
person. The separation being thus necessary, but the presence of both
sex elements being essential to reproduction, the sex instinct, drawing
the separated halves together, became a necessary factor in the
preservation of the race. To subserve this purpose is its natural
function, and any other use of it is unnatural and harmful. In the
animal kingdom it has never gone astray from its due utility. In the
human, owing to the activity of mind, with vividness of memory and of
anticipation, it has become abnormally developed, and its true function
has become subsidiary. It should serve to draw one man and one woman
together, for the creation of pure bodies fit for incoming souls, and
thus aid in cementing an enduring union of two lives complementary to
each other, a union also needed for the nurture and protection of the
young ones within a settled home during their years of helplessness. But
by unbridled indulgence, both within and without marriage, it has
developed into an overmastering passion, which seeks merely for
gratification; its one rightful use, its only natural and legitimate
function, is forgotten; the great creative power is prostituted to be an
agent of pleasure, and this has brought an inevitable nemesis. Society
is honeycombed with diseases which, directly and indirectly, spring from
the general abuse of the creative function; by an extraordinary reversal
of facts, continence is regarded as unnatural instead of natural, and
the demand of the sex instinct for constant gratification is looked on
as normal instead of as abnormality evolved by habitual excess, Doctors
know  the suffering and the misery wrought under marriage sanction by
unbridled incontinence; faced by the sex passion in unmarried lads, they
bid them resort to the women of the streets, and thus increase the evil
heredity;   statesmen vainly try by Contagious Diseases Acts to minimise
the ruin both of men and women; solitary vice is becoming more
widespread, and is the deadly peril which teachers in schools are forced
continually to face, against which they ineffectually strive.

Such is the condition of humanity at the present time, and for this
condition - at the root of most of the misery and crime in civilised
life-Occultism has but one remedy - the restoration of the sex function
to its one proper use by the gradual raising of the standard of sex
morality, the declaration that its only legitimate use is the creative,
that its abuse for sensual pleasure is immoral and unnatural, and that
humanity can only be raised out of its present sensuality by self-
control. This view is not likely to be acceptable in a society
hereditarily self-indulgent, but occult morality is higher and
sterner than that of the world. Also it cares for realities not
conventions, and regards unbridled indulgence within marriage as
degrading both to mind and body, although, because monogamous, somewhat
less ruinous to both than outside the marriage union.

Hence, Occultism condemns "neo-Malthusian practices," as tending to
strengthen sex passion, it condemns the medical advice to young men to
yield to their "natural passions"; it condemns solitary vice as only
less harmful than prostitution; all these things are degrading, unmanly,
unwomanly. [See my Theosophy and the Law of Population, 1891.] It
exhorts man to remount by self-control the steep incline down which he
has slipped by self-indulgence, until he becomes continent, not
incontinent, by nature. On all this Mr. Leadbeater and myself are at
one.

I do not seek to Impose this view on the Theosophical Society, for every
member is free to form his own judgment on the sexual problem, as on any
other, and mutual respect, not wild abuse, is the rightful attitude of
members in face of this, the most difficult problem which confronts
humanity. I speak on this as Occultist. "He that is able to receive it,
let him receive it."

I turn now to the accusations against Mr. Leadbeater, reminding the
Society against whom these accusations are levelled. Mr. Leadbeater was
a clergyman of the Church of England who in 1883 entered the
Theosophical Society, and in 1884 threw up his career to devote his ripe
manhood to its service. From that date until now he has served it with
unwavering fidelity, through good and evil report, has travelled all
over the world to spread its teachings, has contributed to its
literature some of its most valued volumes, and thousands, both inside
and outside the Society, owe to him the priceless knowledge of
Theosophy. During the last two and a half years, under a hurricane of
attack as unexampled as his services, he has remained silent, rather
than that the Society should suffer his reproach. Because he loved the
Society better than his own good name, I, at his wish, have also kept
silence. But now that I am appealed to, I will speak, and the more
gladly because I also wronged him, believing that he had admitted
certain statements as true; I wrote in 1906: "June 7th, I received an
account of the acceptance by Mr. Leadbeater before the Committee of the
facts alleged in the evidence". I thus accepted on what I believed to be
his own word, that which, on the word of others, I had rejected as
impossible, and that which I ought to have continued to reject even
coming as from himself both he and I have suffered, by my blunder, for
which I have apologised to him, to an extent which our unmerciful
critics little imagine; but it is over, and never the shadow of a cloud
can come between us again.

The so-called trial of Mr. Leadbeater was a travesty of justice. He came
before judges, one of whom had declared beforehand that "he ought to be
shot"; another, before hearing him, had written passionate denunciations
of him; a third and fourth had accepted, on purely psychic testimony,
unsupported by any evidence, the view that he was grossly immoral and a
danger to the Society. In the commonest justice, these persons ought not
to have been allowed to sit in judgment. As to the "evidence," he stated
at the time: "I have only just now seen anything at all of the
documents, except the first letter"; on his hasty perusal of them, he
stated that some of the points "are untrue, and others so distorted that
they do not represent the facts"; yet it was on these points, unsifted
and unproven, declared by him to be untrue and distorted, that he was
condemned, and has since been attacked.

It was also on these points that I condemned his teaching; on the
central matter I had before expressed disagreement, but no condemnation.

The following statement is the one which has been so widely used against
him, and contains the teaching that both he and I condemn. That
condemnation I hold to, but the teaching thus condemned was never his;
part of it was repudiated by him before the Advisory Council in 1906,
and the rest of it had been denied in a private letter of February,
1906, since widely published. I wrote, on the false information then in
my hands:

"The advice supposed to be given to rescue a boy, as a last resort, in
the grip of sexual passions, became advice putting foul ideas into the
minds of boys innocent of all sex impulses, and the long intervals, the
rare relief, became twenty-four hours in length, a daily habit. It was
conceivable that the advice, as supposed to have been given, had been
given with pure intent, and the presumption was so, in a teacher of
Theosophical morality; anything else seemed incredible. But such advice
as was given in fact, such dealing with boys before sex passion had
awakened, could only be given with pure intent if the giver were, on
this point, insane."

The two points on which stress is laid here, to which my condemnation
applies were: (1) the fouling of "the minds of boys innocent of all sex
impulses"; (2) the advice for daily self-indulgence; neither of these is
true, and with the falsity of these my condemnation no longer applies to
Mr. Leadbeater's advice.

(1) In the case on which most stress has been laid, the boy had already
contracted an evil habit. Mr. Leadbeater found it impossible to cure the
vice at once, but he induced the boy to give up his daily habit, and to
lessen the frequency of the self-indulgence, gradually lengthening the
intervals, that it might at last be entirely renounced. In a second
case, the boy wrote to his father, expressing his intense gratitude to
Mr. Leadbeater for helping him, and adding: "They were to be continued
only for a very short time.  Do not call them a habit, because they were
never intended to be anything of the kind." Instead, then, of advising
self-indulgence Mr. Leadbeater sought to help boys in their difficulties
by leading gradually up to a perfect control of the sex-functions,
laying especial stress upon the avoidance of haunting lascivious
thoughts. If a man is poisoned with arsenic, what is the treatment by a
doctor? he does not cut off the poison at once, for that would kill; he
prescribes lessening doses till the body regains its normal state. Is
the doctor to be denounced as a poisoner because he takes the only means
of saving his patient?

Mr. Leadbeater says positively that he has never given such advice
except in cases where certain symptoms had already shown themselves
either on the physical plane or in the aura, even though in one or two
instances this may have taken place before what is commonly called
puberty. Unhappily - as is known to every teacher of children - this
vice is found at a very early age, an age much below that of any boy to
whom Mr. Leadbeater spoke. This statement of his - sufficient to all of
us who know him - is thoroughly borne out by the fact that most of the
boys who were much in his company had never heard of any such advice
being given. His usual habit was to speak to the boy of the danger of
both solitary and associated vice, to advise non-stimulating diet,
exercise, and the turning of thought away from subjects connected with
sex-advice on the lines borne witness to by a lad who was much with him,
in a brave letter to the ~Vahan~. This was Mr. Leadbeater's ordinary
advice, as it is the advice of all of us.

(2) This Mr. Leadbeater positively denied before the Advisory Committee,
and there is not a shred of evidence to support the charge. He said:
"The interlineation in writing giving a statement by the mother as to
interval is untrue. The original Interval was a week, and then it was
lengthened to ten days, then a fortnight, and so on."

I ask the members of the Theosophical Society to consider whether this
simple explanation is not more consonant with the character of the great
teacher who has lived among them for twventy-four years, than the lurid
picture of the monster of sexual vice painted by the inflamed fancy of a
few Americans and English? It must be remembered that every effort has
been made to construct personal charges against him, without avail.

I have had In my possession for nearly two years a letter from one of
Mr. Leadbeater's most prominent enemies, addressed to a boy whom Mr.
Leadbeater was said to have corrupted, in which (with many caressing
words, himself using an expression stronger than that which has been
taken, in Mr. Leadbeater's case, to imply impropriety) the writer tried
to coax the boy into confessing criminal relations with Mr. Leadbeater,
begging him not to show the letter to his father, and to destroy it when
read. The lad, utterly ignorant of what was suggested, took the letter
to his father, and the father indignantly sent a copy to me. I have also
seen the original.

It is not true that this advice was given as theosophical or occult. On
the contrary, Mr. Leadbeater has stated throughout that it was a purely
physical matter, from his standpoint, and was given as a doctor gives
advice to a patient, as a temporary expedient to avoid a worse danger,
while lifting the boy out of vice Into purity. Mr. Leadbeater agrees
with me that the advice is dangerous when scattered broadcast - as has
been done by his assailants - and from the very first he volunteered the
promise never to give it again; but in the few special cases in which he
gave it, he thought he had safeguarded it from the obvious danger.

Much has been made of a "cipher letter." The use of the cipher arose
from an old story in the Theosophist, repeated by Mr. Leadbeater to a
few lads; they, as boys will, took up the cipher with enthusiasm, and it
was subsequently sometimes used in correspondence with the boys who had
been present when the story was told. In a type-written note on a
fragment of paper, undated and unsigned, relating to an astral
experience, a few words in cipher occur on the incriminated advice. Then
follows a sentence, unconnected with the context, on which a foul
construction has been placed. That the boy did not so read it is proved
by a letter of his to Mr. Leadbeater - not sent, but shown to me by his
mother - in which he expresses his puzzlement as to what it meant, as he
well might. There is something very suspicious about the use of this
letter. It was carefully kept away from Mr. Leadbeater, though widely
circulated against the wish of the father and mother, and when a copy
was lately sent to him by a friend, he did not recognise it in its
present form, and stated emphatically that he had never used the phrase
with regard to any sexual act. It may go with the Coulomb and Pigott
letters.

There is no doubt that the sex problem is in the air, and it may be, as
Dr. van Hook thinks, that that problem must be discussed in the
Theosophical Society, as it is being discussed by sociologists, doctors
and teachers outside. It can, however, only be decently and usefully
discussed by mature men and women, possessed of physiological and
pathological knowledge and of experience of the darker side of life. On
the moral question we are all at one; it is the method of dealing with
dangerous physiological conditions which is under debate. Personally I
think - basing the view on well known physiological facts - that as
every secretory gland is readily stimulated by thought, and without
stimulation does not work to excess, the occupation of the mind along
healthy lines will generally avoid dangerous excess, and will preserve
in the body the vital elements necessary for the continuance of youth
and strength. Dr. van Hook's medical experience is, of course,
enormously wider than my own, but many doctors hold the view expressed
by me that nature may, in normal cases, be left to give any necessary
relief. But this does not touch Mr. Leadbeater's effort to help boy's
through a difficult period by counsel often given by Catholic priests
under similar circumstances, and given by himself when a priest of the
English Church. Mr. Mead has lately stated, in the pages of the
Theosophical Review, that the facts of sex should be explained to boys
and girls, so as to avoid the dangers to which they are exposed by
hearing the coarse talk of evil-minded servants or vicious comrades. I
agree with him on this, but he will be a bold man who ventures to give
such instruction, in the face of the hideous misconstruction with which
Mr. Leadbeater has been met. The giving by an elder of a scientific and
common sense explanation would be incredible to a society which can only
regard sex through an atmosphere of prudery or vice. In all speech
thereon a vicious purpose would be taken for granted.

With regard to the preamble of the resolution condemning Dr. van Hook, I
am bound to say that it is based on a misrepresentation.  Dr. van Hook
does *not* say that any "corrupting practices . . . . are the high
doctrine of Theosophy and the 'precursor of its introduction into the
thought of the outer world'"; he says that certain habits, characterised
a few lines lower as "this degrading practice," "could not be instantly
interrupted by unspiritualised boys. What more natural *than that he
should recommend that the practice be curbed?* And who knows how many
boys, taking this advice from Mr. Leadbeater, *have not been gradually
weaned away from their vice and brought to entire cleanness of life.?"*
(Italics are mine.) He then speaks of other boys who had not yet fallen
into vice, but who were surrounded by dangerous thought-forms, as
already mentioned above. Dr. van Hook, after this, says that "the
introduction of this question" - obviously the question of how to deal
with boys addicted to vice or on the brink of it, alluded to on the
preceding page as a " problem " known to " every woman school teacher
dealing with children" - "into the thought of the Theosophical world is
but the precursor of its introduction into the thought of the outer
world." It is a proof of the danger of introducing an important
resolution without notice, and of inflaming the listeners with a garbled
account of a paper which they had not read, although they were called on
to vote its condemnation, that such a misrepresentation should have been
imposed on the Convention.

The further statement that Dr. van Hook has said that his letter. was
"dictated verbatim by one of the Masters" suggests, though it does not
say, that Dr. van Hook had made this statement publicly. It would,
perhaps, have been fairer to point out that Dr. van Hook had said this
privately, with a request that it should not be published, and that it
was promptly published by the person to whom he privately wrote it. On
this, as President. I follow the decision laid down by the General
Council on July 7th, 1894, in the case of Mr. W.Q.Judge. Mr. Judge was
charged with certain offences "with respect to the misuse of the
Mahatmas' names and handwriting"; Mr. Judge contended that he, as Vice-
President, could not be tried on such a matter; the Council, on the
motion of Messrs. Keightley and Mead, decided that the point was well
taken. The Judicial Committee, on July 10th, followed this decision, and
apart from the question of his office, it further declared that they
could not consider a charge which involved declaration on their part as
to the existence or non-existence of Mahatmas, as "it would be a
violation of the spirit of neutrality and the unsectarian nature and
constitution of the Society." The President-Founder further declared:
"The authoritative and dogmatic value of statements as to the existence
of Mahatmas, their relations with and messages to private persons, or
through them to third parties, the Society or the general public, is
denied; all such statements, messages or teachings are to be taken at
their intrinsic value and the recipients left to form and declare, if
they choose, their own opinions with respect to their genuineness; the
Society, as a body, maintaining its constitutional neutrality in the
premises." Until those decisions of the General Council, the Judicial
Committee of 1894, and the President-Founder are annulled, I am bound by
them, and cannot officially, nor can the General Council, express any
opinion on the origin of Dr. van Hook's "Open Letter" By parity of
reasoning, no Sectional Council should express any opinion on such a
matter. Dr. van Hook is perfectly free to assert publicly - though he
has not done so - that the "Open Letter" was dictated verbatim by one of
the Masters, and any other member is equally free to deny it.

This is apart from the undesirable nature of the precedent set by a
Sectional Convention in its condemnation of the chief officer of another
Section; every General Secretary is amenable to his own Section
primarily, and this hasty setting of a dangerous precedent is another
proof of the unwisdom of springing on an official body an important
resolution without notice. While technically accepting this resolution
as from "the British Section in Convention assembled," I cannot but know
that it is only the individual opinion of thirty-eight persons, unshared
in by another twenty-six. It is not the deliberate opinion of the
Section.

As regards the main problem:
The Theosophical Society, as a whole, cannot be committed to any special
solution of this problem, and its members must be left free. Dr. van
Hook, a medical man of high repute and for many years a university
professor, has as much right to his view, without being charged with
supporting solitary vice, as his assailants have a right to theirs,
without being charged with favoring prostitution. Both accusations are
equally foul and equally unjust, and people who fling them about are
ipso facto disqualified from being judges. These difficult and delicate
questions of sex cannot be efficiently, or even decently, discussed in
open conventions, in which young people are present. The conclusions
arrived at under such conditions are inevitably those of passion, not of
reason. We are all at one in condemning vicious practices, solitary or
associated, and in desiring to rescue the young who have fallen into
either form of vice. There is no approval of vice anywhere within the
Theosophical Society; there is therefore no need for the Society to
repudiate pernicious teaching on this matter any more than to repudiate
assassination. Mr. Leadbeater and myself labor as earnestly to help
others to pure and noble living as do Mr. Sinnett, Mr. Mead, and their
co-signatories, and there should be room enough in the Society we all
love for us as well as for them.

Mr. Leadbeater resigned two and a half years ago in the vain attempt to
save the Society from this dissension ; he does not ask to return. I am
not at liberty to resign, being where I am by my Master's order, nor am
I at liberty to ask him again to take his place within the Theosophical
Society without a vote of the Theosophical Society. If the Theosophical
Society wishes to undo the wrong done to him, it is for the Convention
of each Section to ask me to invite his return, and I will rejoice to do
so. Further, in every way that I can, outside official membership, I
will welcome his co-operation, show him honor, and stand beside him. If
the Theosophical Society disapprove of this, and if a two-thirds
majority of members of the whole Theosophical Society demand my
resignation because of this, I will ask my Master's permission to
resign. If not, is it not time to cease from warring against chimeras,
and to devote ourselves wholly to the work ?  The trouble is confined to
a small number of American and a considerable number of British members;
can they not feel that they have done their duty by two years and a half
of protest, and not endeavor to coerce the remainder of the Society into
a continual turmoil? The vast majority of you affirmed last year that
you regarded me as the President chosen by the Masters to steer what
They have called "our Theosophical ship." In Their name I call on all,
who are loyal to Them and to Their choice, to work for Them, each in his
own way, but in charity with all.

Your faithful servant,
ANNIE BESANT,
President of the Theosophical Society.

P.S. - Since the above was written, Dr. van Hook has been re-elected as
General Secretary, his Section's answer to the British attack on him. In
answer to a letter from England, he has repudiated the misrepresentation
of his paper, and has made a statement similar to that made by me above,
on pp. 9, IO. No unprejudiced person can read his paper in any other
sense.

I am glad to take this opportunity of rebutting a statement widely
circulated, but utterly untrue, that Mr. Leadbeater " deceived" me in
his statement of the case at Benares. Neither then, nor at any other
time, has he said anything to me which has deviated from truth in any
way. I have utter confidence in his candor.
---------------------------------
Scanned and uploaded by Alan Bain
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Jun 13 23:27:39 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:27:39 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606140033.UAA00315@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: fear

>To: liesel@dreamscape.com
>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:17:50 +0300
>From: Kay Ziatz 
>Reply-To: Kay Ziatz 
>Subject: fear
>
>     Hello!
>
>L> I looked at my copuy of CWL's "Astral Plane", & didn't find what you
>L> mentioned. The book doesn't have an index. Can you tell me a little
>better
> It was a _footnote made by russian translator_. Russian edition of
>"Astral plane" differs from original - it contains approx. 20 kb of
>footnotes illustrating different astral phenomenons by stories from
>life, etc. Also these footnotes contain some conceptions not inclu-
>ded by "canonic" theosophical teaching - egregores, naguals and so on.
>I made a reference to this edition of "Astral plane" only to show that
>conception of egregore isn't invented in Soviet Union, as some people
>think, but has an older origin.
>
>KZ> It's like a gangster organization,
>  My example isn't very correct. It's more like (i don't know how to
>say it in English, but since you lived in Germany, you'll understand me)
>Aktionen Gesellschaft. Of course, there are evil egregores, but there
>are good or neutral, too. Egregore may help people if they get to dan-
>gerous situation, especially when making deeds corresponding to purpo-
>se of egregore.
>
>L> I would answer that I think you're scaring yourself into staying with
>it.
> Yes.
>
>L> but most Karma, we believe, is Karma which you've brought along from
>the
>L> past, & that in the present you always have a choice of how you wish to
> I mean this kind of karma, too. Each kind of karma is separated by plane
>-
>i.e. if you've done something wrong but you've done it by mistake and your
>intentions were good, you'll get bad karma on the physical plane and good
>on the mental plane. So i think egregores are part of mental karma.
>
>L> makes me want to cry to note how scared she is of them.
> Maybe you living in the west know only bad sides of communist rule.
>But there were a good sides. I've heard that in some western countries
>people can't go to the forest, etc - when you drive along the highway
>there's the barriers along the road with tables: private, private...
>Most people here don't want this in Russia. There was an interesting
>psychological phenomenon, too, called "feeling of deep satisfaction".
>It means that people don't have to be nervous about tomorrow, because
>it will be exactly like today, or a little bit better. Conservative
>people agree to sacrifice some comfort that may give capitalist sys-
>tem for this stability. People normally trusted each another, and we
>still can't accomodate to contemporary society where each one is only
>for oneself. There were a little number of cars, too. Suppose, Moscow
>(with 8 million inhabitants in 70's) had clear air because people
>normally hadn't cars and used municipal trolly-bus and subway. Wide
>streets built in 30's-50's help to avoid traffic jams even now!
>There was free education in universities, and so, so on...
>
>L> I don't know the word "shudra". Can you explain what it means?
> It's a lowest indian caste.
>Threr are four:
> Brahman - priests & scientists
> Kshatria - soldiers, generals and kings
> Vaishia - capitallists
> Shudra - working class.
>Latter sometimes means rough, non-educated man, too - I think, my scanner
>meaned this ;)
>
>L> Yes, I'd love to have a copy of their catalog.
> Can you decode UUEncoded messages? If you can't, then I'll split it.
>Do you have a Wheaton catalogue? If yes, look, is there "Occult Che-
>mistry" by CWL & AB?
>
>L> I think nothing will help me anymore, until I can return in a new
>L> body. This one is worn out.
> Are you old enough? If no, i think, it can't be "worn out" because
>it is completely renewed each 7 years, leaving only "constant atoms".
>Have you read an "Esoterical healing" (Treatise on 7 rays vol.4) by
>A. Bailey?
>
>L> I'd still like to know a little more about you. Since your address ends
>in
>L> org., I take it that you got your e-mail address from an organization.
> No, it's other network, FidoNet. It's a free network, i.e. i have not
>pay for it. It started in 1984 in USA and then widespread over the world.
>Addresses in this network are numbers, like in Compuserve, so my address
>is: 2:5020/360.4 It means 2 - Europe, 50 - Russia, 20 - Moscow, 360 -
>node#
>4 - point#. Each who has a modem can join this network. The main rule is
>that it's non-commercial and can't be used for purposes of advertising,
>etc. Fidonet is connected with Internet through the so called "gate" -
>station which have both Fidonet & Internet addresses and a special
>software to convert messages & addresses. We have in Fidonet a lot of
>newsgroup called "echo areas" - they remind technically maillists like
>theos-l, but messages aren't mixed with private mail. I'm a moderator
>in area SU.MAGIC - we still haven't special theosophical conference.
>
>L> What do you do for a living?
>I'm working in an "Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres" - it carries on
>seismological researches, nuclear test control, etc. Wages there are small
>($60/month, note that prices here are much lower than in USA), but
>i haven't to visit my working place every day, sometimes i visit my
>boss & he gives me different jobs, mostly related to programming and desk-
>top publishing.
>
>L> Do you belong to a study center?
>I've studied in Moscow Aviation Institute but i leaved it when i got
>acquainted with theosophy.
>
>L> Do you have a family? etc. etc.
> I'm 28 years old and don't have a wife, but have mother, father and
>grand-
>mother. BTW my cousine lives now in USA, in Lancing (near Chicago),
>because
>her husband studies there. Except occult sciences, my interests lay in
>rock music, jazz and hi-fi recording. I'm a radio amateur and make ampli-
>fiers myself. I'm interesting in gardening, too, our family have so called
>"dacha" - it's a site 18 x 45m with a little house. Unfortunately, cold
>conditions prevent getting good result from it. In 70's we had many
>apples,
>but all trees were frozen out in 1979 and now we have only strawberries
>& plums. Each year we collect much mushrooms in a forest there, but now
>I avoid eating them because they may prevent (like meat) from getting
>"occult forces". Here in Moscow i live with mother & father on a bank of
>Moskva river, on a 2nd floor. My father is scientist (for russian history)
>and mother is engeneer. Both are materialists, like all my relatives.
>
>And in which city do you live? I couldn't define it from yr. address.
>
> With best wishes, Konstantin

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 13 04:23:45 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 04:23:45 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606130421.XAA06857@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: H P Blavatsky in Tibet

 Hi

 Here is some very interesting news relating to HPB's visit to
 Tibet. It is excerpted from Ergates, June 1996 issue.
 ----------------------------------------------


 H.P.B. in Tibet
 By a student in San Franciso

 In December of 1993 a remarkable Tibetan teacher visited the
 United States. Tulku Kalzang Rinpoche, a high lama in Eastern
 Tibet, suffered froma medical condition that was best addressed
 by physicians in Palo Alto, California. The Chinese government
 allowed him two months to seek treatment. Unfortunately, Kalzang
 Rinpoche had another mission which he could not complete in so
 short a time: he was looking for the reincarnation of H. P.
 Blavatsky. Her master, Kalzang Rinpoche claimed, was his uncle.

 Kalzang Rinpoche is the abbot of Dzogchen monstery in Kham
 province, which is in Eastern Tibet. While in the U.S. he sent
 inquiries to the Theosophical Society in America and attempted
 to make contact with other Theosophists, but apparently no one
 at that time was able to help him. Recently, however, several
 Theosophists have learned of Kalzang Rinpoche's visit, and are
 attempting to get more information.

 According to Kalzang Rinpoche, a Tibetan scholar, Gendro Zundap,
 deceased now some forty years, wrote about H.P.B.'s visit to
 Tibet. Gnedro Zundap wrote that H.P.B. was trained by a Lama,
 "Mora," received an important transmission, and that when Lama
 "Mora" died he was reincarnated in Tibet. Kalzang Rinpoche,
 relying on the work of this Tibetan scholar, hoped to find in
 the West the teachings which his uncle Mora gave to H.P.B., and
 to learn more about her life and work.

 It is obvious that, if true, this information will have vast
 consequences for how Theosophy will be perceived by many in the
 West. Currently, most scholars belive that H.P.B. invented the
 *Stanzas of Dzyan* which form the basis of her *Secret
 Doctrine*. Most biographers of H.P.B. doubt that she ever went
 to Tibet, and claim that either she made up her Masters, or that
 H.P.B. was a trance medium who conjured Them spiritualistically.

 In fact there are historical records in the Tibetan language
 that H.P.B. visited Tibet and received training by an important
 Tibetan Buddhist lama, scholars (and eventually the public) will
 be forced to take H.P.B. much more seriously. Many people will
 also have to reconsider H.P.B.'s claim that there exists in fact
 a "brotherhood" of Adepts living beyond the Himalayas and
 preserving the Wisdom Religion. In short, this discovery could
 revolutionize the future course of Theosophy in the world.

 Currently a small team of Theosophists from various traditions
 is working on bringing Kalzang Rinpoche back the United States (with
Chinese permission), so that the Tibetan documents which
 he has may be translated into English and examined very
 carefully. Especially important would be Tibetan records of what
 exactly H.P.B. was taught by Lama "Mora," using which texts, and
 whether the originals of the *Stanzas of Dzyan* exist in Tibet
 today.

 "Dzyan," itself a Tibetan word, is apparently a transliteration
 the Sanskrit "Jnana," both of which mean "spiritual wisdom." It
 seems resonable to hope that the complete text of the *Stanzas
 of Dzyan*, from which H.P.B. made extracts, should turn up
 sooner or later in or around Tibet. In the meantime *Ergates*
 will keep its readers updated as events unfold.
 ---------------------end------------------------

 Excerpt from *Ergates* - June 1996

Peace to all living beings.

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 22:49:55 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:49:55 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <9606122044.AB26740@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606122044.AB26740@alpinet.net>, Bjorn Roxendal
 writes
>At 12:33 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Kay Konstantin, a Theosophist from Russia make this very interesting
>>comment on FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) - a terminology widely
>>used in cyberspace. If anyone has ASCII file of the Key to T, we can
>>post it as a series of posts and it is likely to be widely read.

I have already posted some ASCII files to theos-roots, but not yet the
complete text.  The ones I have you are welcome to - I could e-mail then
to you direct.
>
>Sounds like a good idea, Could it also be made available as an HTML
>document, on the web. To arrange a place for it does not have to cost
>anything, or almost. I could volunteer to put it on a web server, but would
>prefer if someone else did it. Anybody interested in working with texts such
>as these, adding links, comments, etc to create a nice and welcoming
>environment for interested people to find out more about theosophy?
>
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 Jun 13 05:06:56 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:06:56 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960613010654_133926803@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

Doss,
It may be an American prejudice, but I have a difficult time taking seriously
anyone who needs little magic tricks to get acceptance for an idea.
Just because good things are done in his name does not make him a good
person.  Al Capone ran soup kitchens.

Chuck
From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 13 05:36:21 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:36:21 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960613053621.006b5210@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

At 01:23 PM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>Judging from the magic tricks, he may be the incarnation of the Ascended
>Master Harry Blackstone Sr..
>
>Chuck the Skeptic
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>"Anyone can make ash appear from a big sleeve.  Now a complete Thanksgiving
>dinner, that's a good trick!"
>
>
>
>As I undeerstand it, the Indian Government, which is amazingly
unjudgemental regarding Gurus unless they are murderers like Ananda Marga,
have lately turned an extremely bilious eye towards Satya Sai Baba, charging
him with fraud etc. Seems they caught him in the old "switcheroo" trick
"producing rings". The only worst fraud to come out of India was "The Little
Fat Kid" Maharaji. It is the "payback" India is getting even for all those
damn Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists,  not to mention all the
equally damned Anglicans and Catholics and Episcopalians. We sent them
Missionaries and now they send us Missionaries. They're all equally fake.

alexis

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 13 03:35:53 1996
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:35:53 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606130538.AA01803@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy

At 12:51 AM 6/13/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I have already posted some ASCII files to theos-roots, but not yet the
>complete text.  The ones I have you are welcome to - I could e-mail then
>to you direct.

That would be great. Next question:

Any opinions about where it would be best to have it published? (John Mead's
page has been mentioned so far).

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 13 07:29:45 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:29:45 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960613072945.006abeec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: egregores

At 07:17 PM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Upper class morons and bores...yes, I forgot, silly me.
>
>Chuck
> forever to bring up newsgroups. What
>do you think of AOL 3?
>
>Chuck
>
>John likes it, says it's very fast. More when he's had more time to
experience it.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 13 07:29:39 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:29:39 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960613072939.006aa9fc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Review of what Dr. M., A.D. and D. DeG.:  an Apology?

At 06:02 PM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis,
>I will gladly give to you an apology.  But there was no intention to
>insult you.  Notice that I also said "Mr. Dolgorukii."  I should have
>just called everyone by their last name!  Please don't be offended.
>I even said I agreed with everything you had written!  Late last night
>I was trying to cut and paste all of this together from 5 different
>messages and trying to spell everybody's names right.  I even
>had to go back to previous messages and look up the correct
>spelling of your last name as well as Mueckler's (Dr. that is!).  There
>was no intention to insult you; I was focusing all my attention on
>Dr. M.'s contentions.  You can address me as Caldwell anyday of
>the week.  I just hate to be called Mr. Caldwell!

Apology gladly and very happily accepted. You must remember that I was
brought up far more formally than most folks and I am relatively
old-fashioned in my views on what is polite etc. American's constantly drive
me wild!
>
>Do you have a hair trigger temper?

Volcanic! But it's just as awful as my fourth cousins' Though not as bad as
our mutual ancestor Ivan the Terrible's. My Mother, on the other hand, who's
HPB's third Cousin puts both HPB and Me in the shade. Her temper is nuclear!
She's 90 years old and hasn't mellowed a hair!
>
>Daniel
>
>P.S.  Ohhhhhhh, ohhhhhhhh, what is P.J.'s opinion of me?  :  )   :  )

To be honest I'd have to say "not so good" and that's an understatement. He
really thinks you hate him. But you surely know this.
>
>>
Alexis:

P.S. Sorry I "went off", but on occasion I do. My furies are like summer
squalls, "all sound and fury, signifying nothing", I am quick to anger and
quicker to forgive.
>

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 13 07:29:50 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:29:50 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960613072950.006aa418@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

At 01:08 AM 6/13/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>It may be an American prejudice, but I have a difficult time taking seriously
>anyone who needs little magic tricks to get acceptance for an idea.
>Just because good things are done in his name does not make him a good
>person.  Al Capone ran soup kitchens.
>
>Chuck
>
>And Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Hitler provided milk for the
children.

alexis

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 13 15:30:26 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:30:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Postings on CWL Controversy
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Alan:

I do appreciate your posting the material on theos-buds. The information
you posted is not easy to find. Some may even question what is its
relevance today. While each one of us may see the
material differently, it makes us see the whole picture and
come to our own conclusions.  Many thanks for your time and effort.


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 13 17:48:28 1996
Date: 13 Jun 96 13:48:28 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Re to D. DeG.
Message-Id: <960613174827_76400.1474_HHL74-1@CompuServe.COM>

Don:
>I use to believe that the brain was merely a channel for our non-physical self.
>I no longer belief this idea.  I consider the idea, but I do not believe it.
>What I do know, and have seen in hospital settings is that people who
experience
>brain damage undergo drastic changes in their mental and psychological
>functioning.
>...
>I have discovered, and unfortunately, again do not have time to
>dwell on this issue, that the idea that the brain creates our conscious
>awareness is not contradictory to traditional occult ideas of transcendental
>realities.

	Guess what, Don, I completely agree with you.  BTW, I too
studied the brain during my own Ph.D. program, especially the new
chaos model of the brain.  The idea here folks is that the brain is
largely responsible for our waking state consciousness, or how
consciousness functions in the waking (physical) state.  Without
a healthy brain, we have no normal waking state consciousness.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 13 17:22:44 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:22:44 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606131925.AA08282@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Re to D. DeG.

At 01:51 PM 6/13/96 -0400, you wrote:
  The idea here folks is that the brain is
>largely responsible for our waking state consciousness, or how
>consciousness functions in the waking (physical) state.  Without
>a healthy brain, we have no normal waking state consciousness.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI

What about dreaming. Isn't the brain responsible for that, too?

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 13 19:46:21 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:46:21 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960613194621.006b6a5c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Postings on CWL Controversy

At 11:31 AM 6/13/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alan:
>
>I do appreciate your posting the material on theos-buds. The information
>you posted is not easy to find. Some may even question what is its
>relevance today. While each one of us may see the
>material differently, it makes us see the whole picture and
>come to our own conclusions.  Many thanks for your time and effort.
>
>
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
>
>Doss:

May I interject. The evidence presented by Dr. Bain, and that in the book
"Elder Brother" is relevant today because it totally disqualifies Charles
Webster Leadbeater from all of his claims to sanctity and "Arhat Status".
The evidence removes Charles Webster Leadbeater from any possible position
of deserving the respect of anyone. That is relevant if he is to be seen as
an authority figure in modern Theosophy. Most of what is seen as "Core
Theosophical Doctrine" is in the words of Charles Webster Leadbeater. The
evidence makes us ask is this the kind of person we want to hold up as an
exemplar to the people of the world?

To be worthy of respect, any group or organization must "clean its own
house" and not sweep its scandals "under the rug". A Theosophical Society
that refuses to admit that Charles Webster Leadbeater was not a good person
is a Society that is itself, not worthy of respect.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>

From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 13 21:37:23 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:37:23 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606132137.XAA21754@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: YES, you can post to alt.theosophy..

At last I found out how people whose service provider doesn't carry
the alt.theosophy newsgroup can *post* to this newsgroup:

 E-mail to alt.theosophy@news.demon.co.uk

(besides that you just fill in the subject line and the actual message)

Demon internet has a so-called E-mail to Usenet gateway, that's why
it works. Plus it carries the alt.theosophy newsgroup on its newsserver.

Typically your message is added to the list of articles in the alt.theosophy
newsgroup on demon internet and then
distributed along with  other new postings to news-servers around the world
that carry this newsgroup. This means that ALL people with E-mail facilities
should normally speaking be able to post to alt.theosophy.


Reading messages can be done by way of Rene's newsgateway

 http://www.spiritweb.org/cgi/newsgateway.cgi?alt.theosophy

Reading postings should be possible by this method, replying or posting a
new message may not work. But you can use the above mentioned E-mail method.

I will do further research as how to use E-mail to read alt.theosophy
I'll let you know in a couple of days.

Martin

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 13 20:57:11 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:57:11 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606132259.AA09890@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis

At 07:26 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote:

Bjorn wrote:
>>Alexis, I hope you don't mean this. You would be the first human being to do
>>so. I don't think a human CAN base his opinion only on facts.

Alexis wrote:

>Do you really believe that to be so? I know it isn't so and that there are
>millions of people just like me who prefer fact to fantasy.

First you say that you base your opinions ONLY on facts. Seeing that a human
being cannot function without his emotional aspect active, to some degree,
this does not make sense to me. But now you say that you PREFER fact to
fantasy. This, of course, is an entirely different statement. Preferring
fact to fantasy I think is a common trait among theosophists, myself
included. I take this as a way for you of admitting that basing opinions
ONLY on facts really isn't that realistic. Anybody who believes himself
capable of so doing would be risking to seriously deceiving himself.

>>
>>Yes, we are very different, you and I. I don't believe in fascism, and it
>>could well be that AB was having an improper association with this or that
>>fascist. Does that make her a fascist? Certainly not.
>
>It makes her a fascist sympathizer if not an actual collaborator , and
>that's all that can be said.

You have a person, like AB, who has left an enormous record, from writings
and speeches, as to her opinions and goals, clearly showing a desire to
defend the right of every human being to advance on the spiritual path. She
came outof a socialist tradition and converted to theosophy. From that point
on she did not see party politics as a solution to the human dilemma, but
instead worked for the spiritual upliftment of herself and mankind. Her
ideals were those of theosophy, including universal brotherhood. She died
1933, six years before the war, and her last years were marked by old age
and degenerating brain function. Your determination to judge her for some
contact you believe she had with a fascist in the 20ies (I assume) is not
very informative of her character. I am willing to look at the evidence, but
just the fact that she had some friendly contacts with this or that follower
of Moussolini just doesn't impress me very much.


>>A lot of good people had friends that were both fascists and nazis, you know.

>No Bjorn: I don't "Know", in fact what I do know, is that not one single
>good person had friends that were Nazis or Fascists!

Again, you are judging harshly in black and white. For some time, a majority
or near majority of the German population were nazis and supportive of
Hitler. Does this make them all "bad" people. Of course not! Is every
communist a "bad" person? Of course not! I suppose you have seen "Sound of
Music". There is a young boy there, Franz(?), who becomes a nazi and helps
in trying to capture Maria and the family von Trapp. Can't you see the
psychology at work, in a case like his? The nazis had a tremendeous appeal
to young people, many of whom joined the party. Does this make them all
"bad"? According to you, not only were THEY all bad, but all their friends
who were nonnazis were bad also. You seem to live in a black and white world
of absolute right and wrong, far removed from the complexities of real life.
I believe in absolute right and wrong, too, but an error of judgement and
the making of unwise decisions does not make a PERSON bad, nor necessarily
his/her intentions.

I was a communist myself, in my youth, subject to the misguided belief that
communism would be able to cure world suffering. Now I see communism as an
"evil conspiracy" that goes contrary to the divine idea, but I certainly
would never say or believe that all communists are "bad" people.

There were no "good"
>fascists or Nazis and decent people had nothing whatsoever to do with them.
>A relation of mine was a judge at Nuremburg and he did the only possible
>thing to Nazis he had them hung!

I absolutely agree that there were many real "bad" nazis, of course. To
commit the atrocities that some of them did you would have to be a very
"dark" person indeed. And to have such people hung, was probably a good thing.


>With this discussion we part company.
>Permanently.

That's fine with me, although I hope that it is NOT permanently. The
implications of the word "permanently" are very far reaching, if you think
about it.

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 13 20:57:14 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:57:14 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606132259.AB09890@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Owls and Vultures

At 09:41 PM 6/6/96 -0400, Eldon wrote:
>Jerry S:
>
>The basic point of the analogy, which I'd agree with, is that
>"sheep" refers to those following a group approach, using an
>organization or supporting sangha of fellow students to better
>themselves and the world. And the "wolves" are individualists,
>going out on their own.
>
>Regardless of approach -- through a spiritual organization or on
>one's own -- the steps need to be the same. One must awaken an
>inner fire, an inner seed needs to germinate and start to sprout,
>an inner calling must be heard and responded to. This is the same.
>This awakening can and is found in both types of students.
>
>A participant in a group, if it is a bona fide spiritual group, is
>not a passive "follower", but just as challenged by life -- both
>within and without -- as a loner.

I found most of these "sheep - wolf" postings to be ego strutting, more or
less sofisticated. Eldon's contribution stands out as something different,
though. There is some real realization and wisdom here.

>The "sheep versus wolves" analogy does not sit right with me.
>There's an unsavory connotation that those mining for gold in the
>theosophical doctrines -- taking a Platonic or Jnana Yoga approach
>-- are passive followers, people avoiding a real experience of
>life. This is simply untrue.

Community is a real important aspect of the path. For one thing, when
functioning in a community your ego is going to be confronted, time and time
again. There is a lot of opportunity to practice compassion, forgiveness,
service.

>There are, of course, many people in either approach -- the
>individual or the group approaches -- that are pretenders,
>deluded, with a dead inner life, and perhaps overcome with
>psychological inflation.  These people are the "smoke" that
>proves that there is "fire" nearby.

I find this to be true also. Their are many advantages to community but for
some people it becomes an escape from responsibility and challenge.

>What is needed by students of any approach is a willingness to go
>beyond the social norms and conventions, to follow an inner quest.

>Theosophy needs to be studied *in its own context*. It's highly
>helpful to keep up on modern science, and to draw parallels from
>it and one's personal experience. But the study is of deep
>teachings that go beyond modern society and one's mundane
>experience.  One has to let one's mind dare step beyond the
>confines of one's personality and embrace *something more*.

Very well said. Eldon, are any of your writings online? What have you written?

>
>The relative stress one may pay upon the two approaches may
>depend upon whether someone prefers "bottum up" (the psychical
>or introverted sensation approach) or "top down" (the
>spiritual-intellectual, or introverted intuition approach).

I don't quite follow this. Why are "introverted sensation" so different from
"introverted intuition"?

>We'll get along better, I think, as a group, when there's more
>general recognition of the validity of the different approaches.

Yes. All the princpal forms of yoga are valid approaches and some definitely
suit some people better than other.

>It *also means* that the people with a pro-psychic approach

What is this, pro-psychic approach? I am still a newcomer and I seem to have
missed something important here.

>Am I a sheep? No. Am I a wolf? No. Just a student that wants to
>get at the deep Truths buried in Theosophy, like many others.

I'd like to echo this conclusion.

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 13 15:02:18 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:02:18 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Soup Kitchens
In-Reply-To: <960613010654_133926803@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960613010654_133926803@emout14.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Al Capone ran soup kitchens.
>
>Chuck

.. and then he died.  I know, I saw his death mask in the Chicago P.D.
in 1985!

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 Jun 13 23:56:05 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:56:05 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Postings on CWL Controversy
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
"m.k. ramadoss"  writes
>Alan:
>
>I do appreciate your posting the material on theos-buds. The information
>you posted is not easy to find. Some may even question what is its
>relevance today.

.. only to do this would be to question the relevance of all history
and its writings, which would leave only a kind of live-for-the-moment
hedonism.  What is the relevance today of HPB having written the SD and
Isis?  The entire New Age movement, probably.

> While each one of us may see the
>material differently, it makes us see the whole picture and
>come to our own conclusions.

Which is the point of the exercise ...

>  Many thanks for your time and effort.

To quote a well known politician, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
>
>
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
Thank you for your kind words.  A small correction - I am posting to
theos-roots.

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 Jun 13 14:58:09 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:58:09 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: ALERT: We win!  Court rules 3-0 for free speech!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed
 ; boundary="_Turnpike_+X,(WC(5I7?/IBgUd?pqrFJO,ICSb8,jp16ukK6G"

This is a MIME message

--_Turnpike_+X,(WC(5I7?/IBgUd?pqrFJO,ICSb8,jp16ukK6G



  ------- Forwarded message follows -------

--_Turnpike_+X,(WC(5I7?/IBgUd?pqrFJO,ICSb8,jp16ukK6G
Content-Description: Forwarded message: "ALERT: We win!  Court rules 3-0 for free speech!"
Content-Type: message/rfc822

> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Voters Telecommunications Watch 
> Subject:  ALERT: We win!  Court rules 3-0 for free speech!

============================================================================
__     _________        __
\ \   / /_   _\ \      / /          FREE SPEECH WINS IN COURT!
 \ \ / /  | |  \ \ /\ / /          THE COURT DISSES THE CDA 3-0
  \ V /   | |   \ V  V /
   \_/    |_|    \_/\_/         NETIZENS CELEBRATE WITH FIREWORKS

              Redistribute this intact until June 15, 1996
                    URL:http://www.vtw.org/speech/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
        News
        How can I help spread the word?
        Rally information for NYC and Pittsburgh
        Press information

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS

WE WIN!

After 18 months of work, netizens finally got the justice they so
richly deserve.  The three-judge panel in Philadelphia issued a ruling
today saying that they had examined the Communications Decency Act,
learned about the Internet as a medium, and concluded that the law is
an inappropriate method of regulating cyberspace.  This decision
establishes an overwhelmingly positive precedent for the final decision
by the Supreme Court, expected early next year.

The famed "Question Mark" icon that had started popping up all over the
WWW changed simultaneously at 9:09am from a question mark to fireworks,
as thousands of Netizens began the mad rush to obtain a copy of the
court decision celebrating their victory.  You can read a copy of the
decision or obtain a copy of the icon yourself at
http://www.vtw.org/speech/

Senator Feingold (D-WI) said today, "This is welcome news for all of us
who not only support free speech, but who also want to see this new
dynamic communications technology develop safe from the threat of
censorship."

Feingold continued, "This issue is larger than so-called 'adult'
expression or communications.  It is about whether the government will
decide what we see, hear, and write."

Join millions of other netizens as they read the decision, rally, celebrate,
and thank the court for taking the time to do what some members in Congress
and the President would not do: apply the First Amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN I HELP SPREAD THE WORD

It's crucial that people turn out for the rallies, as well as spread the word
about the decision.  You can help in a number of ways outlined below.

1. ATTEND THE NYC/PITTSBURGH RALLIES
If you are anywhere close to the locations of the Pittsburgh or New York
City rallies, please attend and brings lots of friends!

If you are an Internet provider in New York, please place the following
message in your message of the day:

        THE COURT ISSUED A RULING TODAY IN THE INTERNET FREE SPEECH CASE
        ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT.  A RALLY IS BEING HELD IN
        NYC AT OUTERNET (BWAY.NET) @ 626 BROADWAY AT 6:30PM.  FOR MORE
        INFORMATION SEE http://www.vtw.org/speech/ OR CALL OUTERNET AT
        212-982-9800.

If you are an Internet provider in the Pittsburgh area, please place the
following message in your message of the day:

        THE COURT ISSUED A RULING TODAY IN THE INTERNET FREE SPEECH CASE
        ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT.  A RALLY IS BEING HELD ON
        THE STEPS OF THE OAKLAND BRANCH OF THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY AT 4PM.
        FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE http://www.envirolink.org/ OR CALL
        412-683-6400.

2. LINK TO THE TEXT OF THE COURT'S DECISION
The text of the decision will be posted at http://www.vtw.org/speech#decision
Link to it from your page and help spread the word about th case that
will decide so much of the future of free speech online.

        THE COURT ISSUED A RULING TODAY IN THE INTERNET FREE SPEECH CASE
        ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT.  WHILE NETIZENS RALLY IN NEW
        YORK AND PITTSBURGH, YOU CAN READ THE DECISION ONLINE AT
        http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RALLY INFORMATION FOR NYC AND PITTSBURGH

NEW YORK RALLY
WHERE:    Outernet, Inc. (bway.net) @ 626 Broadway, Suite 3-A (third floor)
          (Very close to the Broadway/Lafayette stop on the F train)
WHO:      You and your friends!  Show up, bring friends, and come find
          out how net free speech fared in court.  Here is the current
          speaker list (subject to time, travel, and availability)
                U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
                Barry Steinhardt, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
                Danny Weitzner, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
                David Sobel, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
                Molly Ker, Echo Communications (echonyc.com)
                Jonathan D. Wallace, author, "Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace"
                Alexis Rosen, Public Access Networks (panix.com)
                Ian Stevelman, Outernet (bway.net)

WHEN:     6:30pm, Wed June 12th, 1996.  Bring yourself, lots of friends,
          and whistles, drums, anything to make a lot of noise with.
MORE INFO:Check http://www.vtw.org/speech or http://www.bway.net/
          Press inquiries should go to Shabbir @ 917 978 8430.  Outernet's
          phone number is 212-982-9800.

PITTSBURGH RALLY
WHERE:    Steps of the Oakland branch of the Carnegie Library
WHO:      You and your friends!  Show up, bring friends, and come find
          out how net free speech fared in court.
WHEN:     4pm, Wed June 12th, 1996.  Bring yourself, lots of friends,
          and whistles, drums, anything to make a lot of noise with.
MORE INFO:Check http://www.envirolink.org/.  Press inquiries should go
          to 412-683-6400.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS INFORMATION

Press inquiries about the New York rally should be directed to Shabbir
J.  Safdar (VTW) at 718-596-2851.  To find out about outlets and
electricity for the rally, or to setup cameras ahead of time, contact
Ian @ Outernet at 212-982-9800.

============================================================================

--_Turnpike_+X,(WC(5I7?/IBgUd?pqrFJO,ICSb8,jp16ukK6G


---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

--_Turnpike_+X,(WC(5I7?/IBgUd?pqrFJO,ICSb8,jp16ukK6G--
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 13 14:55:30 1996
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:55:30 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: <$wid$EAivCwxEw5I@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FAQ - Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <9606130538.AA01803@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606130538.AA01803@alpinet.net>, Bjorn Roxendal
 writes
>At 12:51 AM 6/13/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>I have already posted some ASCII files to theos-roots, but not yet the
>>complete text.  The ones I have you are welcome to - I could e-mail then
>>to you direct.
>
>That would be great. Next question:
>
>Any opinions about where it would be best to have it published? (John Mead's
>page has been mentioned so far).
>
>Bjorn
>
>roxendal@alpinet.net
>
We are looking to publist a TI Web page, with links to various
documents, other sites, etc.  I will e-mail the "KEY" files separately.

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 Jun 14 09:20:19 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 02:20:19 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960614092019.006afbc4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Ruminations: Martin Euser

Martin:

Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, my computer "burped" and
flung the last "ruminations"message into"limbo. It sent me a message "not
enough memory for this disk" and shut itself down. Now, as I was on Eudora
and no disks were involved but my hard disk which has plenty of memory. That
cannot be. I have had another problem this evening, involving an apparently
corrupted disk, and my partner thinks we've picked up a virus. We ran our
Virus checker but to no avail and he's bringing home a new one tomorrow that
supposedly is better. For my part I'm calling Coral Tech Support.

I'd like to point out to you that I wasn't in Germany in 1945 with the
Soviets, who would gladly have killed me on sight, but with my Father who
was serving as the Assistant Secretary of War, and was sent into Germany in
the first days of the Occupation as President Roosevelt's Personal
representative. Because he was who he was, and Because as we were
accompanying Generals Patton and Eisenhower, we traveled all over Germany,
WEST and EAST. It was all one heap of rubble! I don't know who produced your
documentary, but then there's documentaries proving there was no holocaust
too. In any case, I'll trust my own eyes. The destruction in Germany was
awesome. As I had also been to Auswitz and Dachau, I was glad, I felt they
deserved it. I was 10 years old at the time.

Since reading and attempting to answer that last "ruminations" message. I've
been doing some thinking. I just realized that I was allowing myself to be
manipulated into a public "Cat Fight", well, I won't "play". Our
relationship started off well enough, but ever since you started this
"Ruminations" string, you have been unremittingly hostile. Now simply
announcing "I'm a psychologist" and claiming the hostility is all in my
imagination, won't wash. You are hostile to my ideas, and to me for having
them. I don't think much of G de P, or The Mahatmas, or "Core Theosophy",and
you appear to dislike me for it. I think that's plain. Wouldn't it have been
more open and honest to have told me: "Alexis, I read your "Ruminations",
and I disagree totally with you. What you had to say angered me, I think
you're totally wrong, and so I have nothing to say to you". Instead you
carped and sniped and criticized and carefully tried to get me to a point of
irritation to give you the opportunity to "Flame" me which you did tonight.
Another thing that won't wash is bashing someone and saying "this isn't
bashing" and putting in a "smiley face"....sorry it's the words that count.

In any case, I don't want, and won't participate in another cat fight on
this board. If I've learned nothing else from my beloved fellow theosophists
it is that I can far too easily let my temper sucker me into totally
unproductive actions. I won't do it in this case. Maybe I've learned my
lesson. It's particularly clear on this list that small "t" theosophists are
anathema to large "T" Theosophists, and I very much doubt that "ere the
twain shall meet".

If you'd like to discuss my views of theosophy and the second generation of
theosophical leaders, and compare my views with your own, without hostility
and animosity. I'd be happy to accommodate you. But you must keep in mind
that, to me neither the Secret Doctrine, nor HPB, nor GeP, nor the Vedas
themselves, are unarguable authority. To me the only purpose of authority is
to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
religion higher than truth" seriously. It is my strong opinion that
Theosophy has become a religion and that it displays all of the flaws of any
literalist group.

alexis

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Jun 14 15:33:29 1996
Date: 14 Jun 96 11:33:29 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Brain & Dreams
Message-Id: <960614153328_76400.1474_HHL64-1@CompuServe.COM>

>What about dreaming. Isn't the brain responsible for that, too?
>
>Bjorn

	Only to an extent.  That is, it is responsible for some
dreams, but not all dreams.  While living the sutraman connects
the physical and astral bodies together, and so some intermingling
occurs.  But what are called Real Dreams, or Big Dreams have
nothing whatever to do with the brain.  In theosophical terms,
dreams within our sphere of effects are brain/body influenced.
Dreams outside our sphere of effects are not influence by
the physical body at all, although our memory of them may be
so tainted after waking.  Recalling of dreams is an important
technique that we should all be practicing.

	Jerry S.
	Member, Ti

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Fri Jun 14 15:09:53 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:09:53 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606141712.AB19429@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Brain & Dreams

At 12:34 PM 6/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>What about dreaming. Isn't the brain responsible for that, too?
>>
>>Bjorn
>
>	Only to an extent.  That is, it is responsible for some
>dreams, but not all dreams.  While living the sutraman connects
>the physical and astral bodies together, and so some intermingling
>occurs.  But what are called Real Dreams, or Big Dreams have
>nothing whatever to do with the brain.

How do I know if my dreams are just dreams or Big Dreams?

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 14 17:08:28 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 13:08:28 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960614130825_328218827@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

Alex,
Fortunately times have sufficiently changed that their missionaries can only
dupe those foolish enough to listen to them, and they get exactly what they
deserve.

Chuck MTI, FTSA
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 14 17:09:32 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 13:09:32 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960614130930_328219647@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

Alex,
And Sai Baba-a-rum produces enough ashes to keep all the cars in the
Himalayas on the road during the winter.

Chuck MTI, FTSA
From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 14 19:42:51 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:42:51 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960614194251.006c8ec8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Sai Baba

At 01:11 PM 6/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Fortunately times have sufficiently changed that their missionaries can only
>dupe those foolish enough to listen to them, and they get exactly what they
>deserve.
>
>Chuck MTI, FTSA
>
>What was it Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said to a fellow Indian who asked where
he got his new Rolls Royce? "It comes from America source of all good
things"> Oh yes, they get exactly what they deserve.

alexis

From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 14 23:09:29 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:09:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960614181204.2487539c@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: e-mailgateway to usenet

Hi

I picked up a message on usenet which gives the following gateways. I have
not completed testing they work currently. You have to send a test msg and
see if you are able to post.

Just send an e-mail message to @

For example to post to alt.hacker thru nic.funet.fi, address the mail to
alt.hacker@nic.funet.fi.

Here are a few e-mail -> usenet gateways:

        group.name@news.demon.co.uk
        group.name@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
        group.name@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
        group.name@nic.funet.fi
        group.name.usenet@decwrl.dec.com

Hope this helps.

	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 14 23:11:54 1996
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:11:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960614181429.248794fe@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Usenet access

>Hi here is a msg that might interest some in the US and overseas.
>
>We can very easily access Usenet in India.
>
>What I do is go to Infoseek search engine and,after
>specifying the subject line,se;ect a Usenet search.
>That's all! (Remember...I am talking about a shell
>accoutn, not a TCP/IP one).
>>>>clip>>>>>
>Regards.
>
>Prakash
>
>

	Peace to all living beings.

	M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 15 01:42:46 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:42:46 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606150140.UAA13896@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Re: mail2news?

Hi

Here is another gateway.

...MKR


In news.software.readers, billy@mix.com wrote:

>Lam Hong  writes:

>> 	If I want to post news via mail, what should I do?
>> 	What is the format of the mail body? And which address
>> 	should I send to?

>You can do it via the University Of Texas' Mail to News program.
>Just write your article in a mail message and address it to...

>newsgroup-name@cs.utexas.edu

>Your article will appear in the applicable newsgroup shortly. BTW replace
>"newsgroup-name" with the actual name of the newsgroup you wish to post
>to.  Additionally replace the dots with dashes... examples -

>	alt.fan.mariah-carey would become

>		alt-fan-mariah-carey@cs.utexas.edu

>	rec.arts.theatre.musicals would become

>		rec-arts-theatre-musicals@cs.utexas.edu

>Billy Y..


Peace to all living beings.

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 15 06:46:26 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 02:46:26 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960615024625_414668693@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Postings on CWL Controversy

Alex,
Show me someone who thinks he's an arhat and I'll show you and airhead.

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 15 06:46:46 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 02:46:46 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960615024646_414668703@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Soup Kitchens

Alan,
Yes he did, and to the day he died, raving from the ravages of syphillis, he
saw the ghosts of the men he had killed haunting him.

Chuck MTI, FTSA
From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 15 12:30:45 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:30:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606151230.OAA17597@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: To Donna, Re: Chuck & Alexis


Bjorn wrote:
>>Alexis, I hope you don't mean this. You would be the first human being to do
>>so. I don't think a human CAN base his opinion only on facts.

Alexis wrote:

>Do you really believe that to be so? I know it isn't so and that there are
>millions of people just like me who prefer fact to fantasy.

Bjorn>First you say that you base your opinions ONLY on facts.
 Seeing that a human being cannot function without his emotional aspect
active, to some degree, this does not make sense to me.
But now you say that you PREFER fact to
fantasy. This, of course, is an entirely different statement. Preferring
fact to fantasy I think is a common trait among theosophists, myself
included. I take this as a way for you of admitting that basing opinions
ONLY on facts really isn't that realistic. Anybody who believes himself
capable of so doing would be risking to seriously deceiving himself.


Bjorn: you're absolutely right here. And it may be interesting to add
the fact that people generally are inclined to perceive those facts
that they like and ignore other ones.


>>
>>Yes, we are very different, you and I. I don't believe in fascism, and it
>>could well be that AB was having an improper association with this or that
>>fascist. Does that make her a fascist? Certainly not.
>
>It makes her a fascist sympathizer if not an actual collaborator , and
>that's all that can be said.

Bjorn> Your determination to judge her for some
contact you believe she had with a fascist in the 20ies (I assume) is not
very informative of her character. I am willing to look at the evidence, but
just the fact that she had some friendly contacts with this or that follower
of Moussolini just doesn't impress me very much.
A lot of good people had friends that were both fascists and nazis, you know.

Alexis>No Bjorn: I don't "Know", in fact what I do know, is that not one
 single good person had friends that were Nazis or Fascists!

Bjorn>Again, you are judging harshly in black and white. For some time, a
majority
or near majority of the German population were nazis and supportive of
Hitler. Does this make them all "bad" people. Of course not! Is every
communist a "bad" person? Of course not! I suppose you have seen "Sound of
Music". There is a young boy there, Franz(?), who becomes a nazi and helps
in trying to capture Maria and the family von Trapp. Can't you see the
psychology at work, in a case like his? The nazis had a tremendeous appeal
to young people, many of whom joined the party. Does this make them all
"bad"? According to you, not only were THEY all bad, but all their friends
who were nonnazis were bad also. You seem to live in a black and white world
of absolute right and wrong, far removed from the complexities of real life.
I believe in absolute right and wrong, too, but an error of judgement and
the making of unwise decisions does not make a PERSON bad, nor necessarily
his/her intentions.


Bjorn: you're right about the complexities of real life. People are
complex 'bundles of emotions' and we may very well feel sympathy
for people who overstep the mark. In a black and white vision we
would reject such a person and wouldn't want to have anything to do
with such a person. There are of course people who act in just such
a way, believing they will be 'contaminated' by such contacts.



Alexis>With this discussion we part company.
>Permanently.

Bjorn>That's fine with me, although I hope that it is NOT permanently. The
implications of the word "permanently" are very far reaching, if you think
about it.

Bjorn: indeed. 'Black and white'-thinking is something for the Dark ages
and for fundamentalists of any kind (generally speaking).
We are now living in a 'post-modern' era, in which people learn to think
in nuanced ways. Still a difficult thing to do, though.



Martin
euser@euronet.nl

From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 15 12:30:50 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:30:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606151230.OAA17603@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re:Ruminations: Martin Euser


Martin:

Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, my computer "burped" and
flung the last "ruminations"message into"limbo.

Alexis: why would this be fortunate?

And why this sudden change from E-mail to me to theos-l?
On a request of mine (in an E-mail exchange) for an answer on our Ruminations
discussion you replied on an E-mail to E-mail basis and now you're suddenly
changing that back to theos-l listserv. People will have no idea what you're
talking about here. But actually I prefer our discussion
to stay on theos-l. Others may chime in and have useful things to say.


A>, we traveled all over Germany,
WEST and EAST. It was all one heap of rubble! I don't know who produced your
documentary, but then there's documentaries proving there was no holocaust
too. In any case, I'll trust my own eyes. The destruction in Germany was
awesome.


Indeed. But there may have been things happening that escaped your eyes.
Like people storing and covering machines somewhere.

A>Since reading and attempting to answer that last "ruminations" message.
 I've been doing some thinking. I just realized that I was allowing myself
to be manipulated into a public "Cat Fight"

I told you so in my E-mail to you.


A>, well, I won't "play".

That's a sensible decision.


 A>Our
relationship started off well enough, but ever since you started this
"Ruminations" string, you have been unremittingly hostile.


Not at all. In fact I've been very friendly with you, until my last post
to you which contained severe criticism on you for very good reasons
which I explained to you. Apparently you have a difficult time discriminating
between real hostility and sincerely meant criticism. There *is* a difference
between that. Unless you can accept severe criticism on your views,it will
be difficult to have discussions with you. And, since you strongly criticize
core theosophy, you *will get that criticism* from many sides.
Hopefully, new visions and a deepened insight in theosophy (small or big t)
will emerge. That is the essence of having a real discussion.


A> Now simply
announcing "I'm a psychologist" and claiming the hostility is all in my
imagination, won't wash.

Again, no hostility. This is *in your perception*. I was trying to get
across to you, but haven't succeeded very much so far.

A> You are hostile to my ideas, and to me for having
them.


Nonsense. You can think what you like, only you can not expect others
to agree with each and every idea you have. Plus that it would be beneficial
for discussions if you added as much arguments as you can think of
in support of your views. It is not enough to just state that you don't agree
with something.



A> I don't think much of G de P, or The Mahatmas, or "Core Theosophy",and
you appear to dislike me for it.


Again, a hasty conclusion. I would love to see *real* discussions
on theosophy, backed up with strong arguments.

A> I think that's plain. Wouldn't it have been
more open and honest to have told me: "Alexis, I read your "Ruminations",
and I disagree totally with you.

No, I said before that I agreed with many points
(certainly not all, however).


A> Instead you
carped and sniped and criticized and carefully tried to get me to a point of
irritation to give you the opportunity to "Flame" me which you did tonight.

There was no flame, but severe criticism and well-meant advice.


A>In any case, I don't want, and won't participate in another cat fight on
this board. If I've learned nothing else from my beloved fellow theosophists
it is that I can far too easily let my temper sucker me into totally
unproductive actions.

Well, that's a very valuable lesson, I'd say. (and no derision intended).


A>If you'd like to discuss my views of theosophy and the second generation of
theosophical leaders, and compare my views with your own, without hostility
and animosity. I'd be happy to accommodate you.


Alexis: I am always prepared (within limits of time I can spend to it)
to discuss views of anyone on theosophy. But be prepared for large
disagreements and keep strong arguments at hand to back up your vision.
That seems only a reasonable request to me.

A> But you must keep in mind
that, to me neither the Secret Doctrine, nor HPB, nor GeP, nor the Vedas
themselves, are unarguable authority. To me the only purpose of authority is
to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
religion higher than truth" seriously.


So do I and still we can have strong disagreements!

A>It is my strong opinion that
Theosophy has become a religion and that it displays all of the flaws of any
literalist group.

Well, this is true in some sense, although I do think that there are
quite some theosophists trying to do some thinking for themselves.
Also, the different TSs and lodges can't be all thrown on one heap, I think.

Martin

From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Sat Jun 15 12:20:59 1996
Date:          Sat, 15 Jun 1996 12:17:59 -0300
From: 
Subject:       Re:Unveiled Isis
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <2C74C30A76@serv.peb.ufrj.br>

Jerry Ekins, you said:
>in chapter VII in Bk. II where HPB does discuss
>Irenaeus, but found no statements to the effect that he
>"distorted gnostic doctrines."  Though I did find where HPB
>called him "prejudiced" (292) and a "bible-kaleidoscopist" (304).
We have a small problem. My portuguese edition, was published in
four volumes, and I think that your original english edition in two.
To facilitate identification, now I will refer to my edition, saying to
you the start and final page of the chapter. For instance "bible-kaleidoscopist"
is found at BOOK III, chapter VII (start page 256, and final page 296) at page
267. We can also read at same chapter VII, at page 281: "must we do frighten
when even century XIX scolars, having only a few fragments of gnostic manuscripts,
was able to detect forgeries i ALMOST ALL PAGES" ,of his slanderes as Irenaeus)
Surely HPB makes a unfair commentary about Irenaeus'works, as you have
seen in my last e-mail, when I reproduce text from Britannica Enc.

Even HPB, seems to give credit to Irenaeus!
BOOKIII, CpIII (start 116,final 145) page 140 HPB refers to Irenaeus'
description of gnostic Basilides' system, and his notion of 
(Adv. Haer. I,XXIV,4) and HPB says "this is not surely neither sacrilege against
religious idea itself, nor to all unbiased thinker". So Iraeneus seems
to describe correctly Basilides'system.

BOOKIII, CpIV (start 153, final 185) at page 157 HPB refers to Tetrakys
"Christos ans Sophia originates the Jesus man. Irenaeus shows that both
, father and son, love the beauty of primitive form (formam), who is Bythos,
and also Sophia, and that produced Ophis and Sophia: male and female wisdom
whom one is Holy Spirit and the other Ophis (Jesus-god-man), that ophites
refers as a snake". HPB refers to Adv.Haer. I,XXX,1-3. Again HPB reproduce
Irenaeus' conception, about gnostics.

BUT..
BOOKIII, CpIV page 160 "Irenaeus seems so irreducibly entangled in his
useless efforts to explain, at least in his external aspects, the truly
doctrines of many gnostics sects and to present then, at same time, as
'heresies',abominations; that, deliberately, or by pure ignorance, he
confuse it in such way, that only a few methaphics would be able to
disentangle, without help of Qabala or Codex". HPB continues giving two
examples of misconceptions made by Irenaeus. The confusion between
sethianites and ophites; and about doctrines of Cerinthus. At page 167
again HPB says that Irenaeus gives a erroneous conception about ophites.

Jerry, sorry about my english translations, probably I commit some erros,
so I prefer that you check this passages in your text. I also agree with you
when you say about early church: "Their task was to discredit and destroy the
gnostic movement through debate, and later by political force".  I only want to
make clear that we must look with respect about Irenaeus' work.

Abrantes
From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 15 16:28:40 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:28:40 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960615162840.006c3a30@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Postings on CWL Controversy

At 02:50 AM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Show me someone who thinks he's an arhat and I'll show you and airhead.
>
>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>"Airhead"...hah! I could easily think of another epithet beginning with
"a". You know the thing about CWL and his covey of bishops/arhats is that he
always sort of made it clear that by claiming to be "only" an Arhat, he was
being modest and discreet. What he was always posing as was a Mahatma. I
also believe he talked Besant into that hallucination too. I was "browsing"
through some of his books the other day...and you'd be surprised how
frequently his sentences start with "Even I.......". For instance in
discussing certain "exalted beings in the hierarchy" and in discussing the
so-called "9th Initiation" he says "Even I have never encountered such a
being"...what does that say about his pretensions?

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 15 17:38:27 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:38:27 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960615173827.006b8458@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re:Ruminations: Martin Euser

At 08:36 AM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Martin:
>
>Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, my computer "burped" and
>flung the last "ruminations"message into"limbo.
>
>Alexis: why would this be fortunate?

Because things I may have said that should NOT have been said went into
"limbo" with it.
>
>And why this sudden change from E-mail to me to theos-l?
>On a request of mine (in an E-mail exchange) for an answer on our Ruminations
>discussion you replied on an E-mail to E-mail basis and now you're suddenly
>changing that back to theos-l listserv. People will have no idea what you're
>talking about here. But actually I prefer our discussion
>to stay on theos-l. Others may chime in and have useful things to say.

Now that's a REVELATION! I had absolutely no idea that we hadn't been
communicating on the board all along. No kidding, I am really not much of a
"techie" and just responded to messages by pushing the >reply< button, and I
never looked to see the address to which I was replying.
>
>
>A>, we traveled all over Germany,
>WEST and EAST. It was all one heap of rubble! I don't know who produced your
>documentary, but then there's documentaries proving there was no holocaust
>too. In any case, I'll trust my own eyes. The destruction in Germany was
>awesome.
>
>
>Indeed. But there may have been things happening that escaped your eyes.
>Like people storing and covering machines somewhere.

Mine perhaps, but my Father's? Never! That's exactly one of the most
important items he was there to report back to the President about. How much
aid did the Germans really require, and how much potential capacity they had
left. The American Army spent a lot of time and energy searching for "hidden
caches" of all sorts of things. (Gold, securities, art treasures, various
paperwork, and industrial machinery). I think the preparers of the
documentary you mention had an agenda of their won. I have no idea what it
is. But they have played fast and loose with facts. The only motivation I
can imagine is to discredit Germany's "Wirtshaftswunder", but I can't
imagine why.
>
>A>Since reading and attempting to answer that last "ruminations" message.
> I've been doing some thinking. I just realized that I was allowing myself
>to be manipulated into a public "Cat Fight"
>
>I told you so in my E-mail to you.
>
>
>A>, well, I won't "play".
>
>That's a sensible decision.
>
>
> A>Our
>relationship started off well enough, but ever since you started this
>"Ruminations" string, you have been unremittingly hostile.
>
>
>Not at all. In fact I've been very friendly with you, until my last post
>to you which contained severe criticism on you for very good reasons
>which I explained to you. Apparently you have a difficult time discriminating
>between real hostility and sincerely meant criticism. There *is* a difference
>between that. Unless you can accept severe criticism on your views,it will
>be difficult to have discussions with you. And, since you strongly criticize
>core theosophy, you *will get that criticism* from many sides.

I think where we have a problem of different understandings here is in the
idea that while I can easily accept very strong disagreement with my views,
I regard the word criticism to be beyond simple disagreement and indicative
of hostility. "Severe criticism" to me is an expression of hostility, not an
expression of different opinion. I really think it's possible to entirely
disagree with a person without resorting to sarcasm and sniping. I am used
to hostility but I don't have to acquiesce in it. You probably don't know
this but in my book that's coming out, I ignore "Core Theosophy" entirely
and attack (and I use the word carefully) the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
Religion. Believe me Martin I will (and long have Been) the object of
"slings and arrows" from Fundamentalists of all stripes, Theosophical
Literalists are only some of the mildest.
If you actually understand my attitude towards "Core Theosophy" you will see
that I don't criticize it, I simply find it irrelevant and unfounded in
reality. Now for that, a reasonable person can disagree with me but not
criticize me. Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.

>Hopefully, new visions and a deepened insight in theosophy (small or big t)
>will emerge. That is the essence of having a real discussion.
>
>
>A> Now simply
>announcing "I'm a psychologist" and claiming the hostility is all in my
>imagination, won't wash.
>
>Again, no hostility. This is *in your perception*. I was trying to get
>across to you, but haven't succeeded very much so far.
>
>A> You are hostile to my ideas, and to me for having
>them.
>
>
>Nonsense. You can think what you like, only you can not expect others
>to agree with each and every idea you have. Plus that it would be beneficial
>for discussions if you added as much arguments as you can think of
>in support of your views. It is not enough to just state that you don't agree
>with something.
>
>
>
>A> I don't think much of G de P, or The Mahatmas, or "Core Theosophy",and
>you appear to dislike me for it.
>
>
>Again, a hasty conclusion. I would love to see *real* discussions
>on theosophy, backed up with strong arguments.
>
>A> I think that's plain. Wouldn't it have been
>more open and honest to have told me: "Alexis, I read your "Ruminations",
>and I disagree totally with you.
>
>No, I said before that I agreed with many points
>(certainly not all, however).
>
>
>A> Instead you
>carped and sniped and criticized and carefully tried to get me to a point of
>irritation to give you the opportunity to "Flame" me which you did tonight.
>
>There was no flame, but severe criticism and well-meant advice.
>
>
>A>In any case, I don't want, and won't participate in another cat fight on
>this board. If I've learned nothing else from my beloved fellow theosophists
>it is that I can far too easily let my temper sucker me into totally
>unproductive actions.
>
>Well, that's a very valuable lesson, I'd say. (and no derision intended).
>
>
>A>If you'd like to discuss my views of theosophy and the second generation of
>theosophical leaders, and compare my views with your own, without hostility
>and animosity. I'd be happy to accommodate you.
>
>
>Alexis: I am always prepared (within limits of time I can spend to it)
>to discuss views of anyone on theosophy. But be prepared for large
>disagreements and keep strong arguments at hand to back up your vision.
>That seems only a reasonable request to me.
>
>A> But you must keep in mind
>that, to me neither the Secret Doctrine, nor HPB, nor GeP, nor the Vedas
>themselves, are unarguable authority. To me the only purpose of authority is
>to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
>be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
>religion higher than truth" seriously.
>
>
>So do I and still we can have strong disagreements!
>
>A>It is my strong opinion that
>Theosophy has become a religion and that it displays all of the flaws of any
>literalist group.
>
>Well, this is true in some sense, although I do think that there are
>quite some theosophists trying to do some thinking for themselves.
>Also, the different TSs and lodges can't be all thrown on one heap, I think.
>
>Martin
>
>
Well, it's a beginning:

alexis>

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 15 17:22:15 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:22:15 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606151924.AC00740@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re:Ruminations: Martin Euser

Psychologically speaking we have Alexis coming down on anything and
everything he does not agree with in a very emotional way. At the same time
he claims he is basing his opinions "only on facts". He also tends to see
things in a simplistic white and black pattern. These factors make
constructive interchange with Alexis very difficult. He also tends to
project his own hot temper and condemnatory style on other people, accusing
them for the tendencies he himself is constantly dsiplaying. All the while
consuming more band width than anybody else on this list and tying up
constructive people in more or less meaningless and fruitless interchanges.

In my case he decided NOT even talk to me, because my opinions, in his
opinion are so outrageous. Perhaps that is advice that many of us should
apply to him. This would leave us with much more time and energy for
constructive work to further the cause of Theosophy.

As Martin notes, he is very fond of forcefully condemning this or that,
without having substantial backing for his position. He enjoys throwing his
opinions into the throat of everybody without being receptive to the
necessary reactions.

Bjorn


At 08:36 AM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Not at all. In fact I've been very friendly with you, until my last post
>to you which contained severe criticism on you for very good reasons
>which I explained to you. Apparently you have a difficult time discriminating
>between real hostility and sincerely meant criticism. There *is* a difference
>between that. Unless you can accept severe criticism on your views,it will
>be difficult to have discussions with you. And, since you strongly criticize
>core theosophy, you *will get that criticism* from many sides.
>Hopefully, new visions and a deepened insight in theosophy (small or big t)
>will emerge. That is the essence of having a real discussion.
>
>
>A> Now simply
>announcing "I'm a psychologist" and claiming the hostility is all in my
>imagination, won't wash.
>
>Again, no hostility. This is *in your perception*. I was trying to get
>across to you, but haven't succeeded very much so far.
>
>A> You are hostile to my ideas, and to me for having
>them.
>
>
>Nonsense. You can think what you like, only you can not expect others
>to agree with each and every idea you have. Plus that it would be beneficial
>for discussions if you added as much arguments as you can think of
>in support of your views. It is not enough to just state that you don't agree
>with something.
>
>
>A> I don't think much of G de P, or The Mahatmas, or "Core Theosophy",and
>you appear to dislike me for it.
>
>
>Again, a hasty conclusion. I would love to see *real* discussions
>on theosophy, backed up with strong arguments.
>
>A> I think that's plain. Wouldn't it have been
>more open and honest to have told me: "Alexis, I read your "Ruminations",
>and I disagree totally with you.
>
>No, I said before that I agreed with many points
>(certainly not all, however).
>
>
>A> Instead you
>carped and sniped and criticized and carefully tried to get me to a point of
>irritation to give you the opportunity to "Flame" me which you did tonight.
>
>There was no flame, but severe criticism and well-meant advice.
>
>
>A>In any case, I don't want, and won't participate in another cat fight on
>this board. If I've learned nothing else from my beloved fellow theosophists
>it is that I can far too easily let my temper sucker me into totally
>unproductive actions.
>
>Well, that's a very valuable lesson, I'd say. (and no derision intended).
>
>
>A>If you'd like to discuss my views of theosophy and the second generation of
>theosophical leaders, and compare my views with your own, without hostility
>and animosity. I'd be happy to accommodate you.
>
>
>Alexis: I am always prepared (within limits of time I can spend to it)
>to discuss views of anyone on theosophy. But be prepared for large
>disagreements and keep strong arguments at hand to back up your vision.
>That seems only a reasonable request to me.
>
>A> But you must keep in mind
>that, to me neither the Secret Doctrine, nor HPB, nor GeP, nor the Vedas
>themselves, are unarguable authority. To me the only purpose of authority is
>to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
>be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
>religion higher than truth" seriously.
>
>
>So do I and still we can have strong disagreements!
>
>A>It is my strong opinion that
>Theosophy has become a religion and that it displays all of the flaws of any
>literalist group.
>
>Well, this is true in some sense, although I do think that there are
>quite some theosophists trying to do some thinking for themselves.
>Also, the different TSs and lodges can't be all thrown on one heap, I think.
>
roxendal@alpinet.net

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 15 20:41:50 1996
Date: 15 Jun 96 16:41:50 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy
Message-Id: <960615204150_76400.1474_HHL54-1@CompuServe.COM>

Alexis:
> To me the only purpose of authority is
>to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
>be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
>religion higher than truth" seriously.

	It seems to me that what you are expressing here is
the very spirit of theosophy itself.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 15 18:55:47 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:55:47 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606152058.AB01265@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TI has a lot to do?

At 10:42 PM 6/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alan ...
>	Well, for what its worth, I don't have very much $$$, and even
>less time, but I can write HTML code, and certainly could write the
>script needed to create & link a set of TI pages ... and if a project was
>made out of it, perhaps a number of us could contact other philosophical
>& spiritual organizations with Web pages & trade links (i.e., we put
>links to their organizations on one of our pages, and they put a link to
>ours on theirs - quite a common thing on the Web).

Well, JRC, perhaps you are the right man for preparing the theosophy FAQ
(Key to Theosophy) for the web. Would you be willing to make a HTML document
of it? And then it could be put up and linking here ande there, back and
forth could be developed.

>	Last time I checked, to register a domain name was somewhere
>around $500.00 US (i.e., to have an address that actually reads something
>like  instead of piggybacking
>on another - e.g. .
>I'm not sure, however, that the cost is worth the benefits - as if the
>page is linked right ... it won't really lead to very many additional visits.

I agree. THis is my experience, too. THe URL name doesn't mean that much to
the traffic.


>	The other possibility is ... if some kind TI member checked with
>their service provider - I know that some services *include* Web space as
>part of what a person gets when they sign up ... usually around 5 megs of
>memory space (far more than enough if the pages aren't graphic-intensive)

You could fit MANY BOOKS on 5 Megs, as long as it were primarily text.

>.. so we may actually already have some members who could host the TI
>pages with no additional cost.

Have any voluteers come forward?

>	Before even really beginning such an endeavor, however, there is
>a deeper issue to take up: What is out *intent* in putting the time and
>energy into "TI Web"? What, *specifically*, do we hope to accomplish? Who
do we want to reach? What do we wish them to do when we reach them? *Who*
>will answer questions, and how will they be answered ...

While I agree that these questions are EXTREMELY important, and could help
us define a much more active and successful organization than the present, I
think it would be QUITE unwise to delay the start of the web project till
after these discussions have been held. They could easily take forever
without even leading to any workable consensus. The solution, as I see it,
is for a few dedicated people to start publishing valuable teachings right
away, even while the discussions about the above metnioned questions are
getting started.


 the members are
>all people who, for the most part, have had siginificant involvement with
>one or more theosophical organizations over the years - what happens when
>a newcomer - who may have only vaguely heard of theosophy, *asks* "What
>is TI?"? What do we say? "Well, you sign up!" Okay. Now what? Well,
>that's pretty much it (-:). Do we encourage people to do things? Read
>literature? *Which* literature? Do we encourage them to join theos-l?
>Tell them about the formal organizations? Which ones? How do we present
>them?

The people who are actively involved in web publishing would decide about
the direction. This does not have to be once and for all and set in stone
before work begins. The questions ARE important but can be taken on step by
step, in a dialictic process with the experience gathered from actually
DOING it.


>	We must also remember that the Web requires a very specific sort
>of presentation to be successful - think of it as the computing version
>of "channel - surfing" on a TV. *Most* who cruise the Web visit dozeens
>of sites every time they log on. It is most assuredly *not* a place for
>long, ornate philosophical statements (tho' I suppose one could create
>links to such things) at least in the initial pages.

That's right. The welcome pages have to be pretty flashy, but there is
nothing wrong with making all kinds of literature available as links.


I mean ... we don't
>just want say "ooohhh, cool! Look! We have a Web page! - with the end
>result that we feel quite pleased with ourselves, but neglect to notice
>that hardly anyone visits it, those who visit quickly move on when faced
>with five pages of nothing but dense text, and the few who do make it
>through find they have no idea what to do once they've finished.

Very good points. Again, we will learn by doing but should take as much of
your advice as possible into consideration from the beginning.


>	Having worked with several non-profits in the creation of Web
>pages ... I've found it to be a *very* interesting process ... to be
>effective, the process *forces* the organization to clarify (often for
>the first time) exactly *what* face they want to present to the world at
>large - in a sense it is a form of "magic", as it is really nothing less
>than the *delibrate construction of a personality*. And that means
>everything must be taken into account: The page must be lively, with a
>reasonable balance between text and graphics; the text must be conscise,
>powerful, but written in approximately a high-school level of vocabulary
>(e.g., words like "Avalokiteswara" probably won't help the cause tee
>hee). We would want the pages to carry spiritual, intellectual, and
>emotional content, and have a pleasing physical appearance as well.

Great! You obvioulsy have valuable experience in creating this type of
pages. Let's start with some ideas for a welcome page, that will link to the
"FAQ" as well as to some other materials.

>	(Sorry to be babbling here, and I must go `cause I'm *really*
>busy just now, but just thought I'd throw in my two cents as I just spent
>the last week writing a Web page for a group, and it's kinda on my mind
>right now.

Thank you SO MUCH for contributing. Your two cents are worth more than many
hundreds of cents of hair splitting!


 A TI Web page would be great, but we would really need to make
>a *project* of it if we want it to serve a *purpose* beyond simply having
>it ... something that many organizations never grasp. There is a lot of
>just outright *hype* about the Web, but just putting a page on doesn't
>mean anything. For instance (and this is not to say anything against Rudy
>who I kinda like) we already have Rudy's page ... but has anyone other us
>even visited it?

I have also been involved in designeing web pages, both commercial and
nonprofit. I find it quite easy to generate traffic and make contact with
people through this medium. A nice direct welcome page, email link to
somebody to TALK TO, links to pages with CONTENT, publish through all major
search engines, and PRESTO, there you are! Add a counter, to monitor
traffic, both to the welcome page and to the content pages.

Look at the scientology pages for a good example of how this can be taken to
the extreme. Through its web pages, Scientology projects the image of being
a very competent body of people, with all kinds of abilities, strongly
attracting many netizens who also are intelligent and technical people.
(Believe me, I am NOT endorsing Scientology).

Has, in short, *anything* come of it save TI visiting it
>once and saying "gee that's nice"? I don't mean to sound overly harsh
>here, but a failing that has plagued theosophical organizations for quite
>some time is that they continually start projects (often committing
>substantial resources to them) without ever even bothering to define what
>they want to accomplish, and in the rare cases where desired outcomes are
>vaguely defined, never check to see whether the outcomes have been
>accomplished - and I'd hate to see TI fall prey to that trait).

There should be a neverending feedback process, enabling a spiraling
evolution of the web effort, just as this process applies to life itself.

Thanks again, JRC, let's get going!

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 15 21:21:53 1996
Date: 15 Jun 96 17:21:53 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Brain & Dreams
Message-Id: <960615212153_76400.1474_HHL45-2@CompuServe.COM>

>How do I know if my dreams are just dreams or Big Dreams?
>
>Bjorn

In a word, meaning.  If a dream seems relatively meaningless,
then it is a little dream.  If it seems very meaningful to you in
some way (i.e., a future prediction, an insight, a past memory, etc)
then it is probably a Big Dream.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 15 20:20:39 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:20:39 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606152222.AA01754@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Review of what Dr. M., A.D. and D. DeG. have written on
  OOBEs and PSI, with  additional comments by Daniel Caldwell

At 01:55 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>***************************************************************
>Various comments have been made by Dr. Mike Mueckler
>on the "reality" of out-of-the-body- experiences and psychic
>phenomena.

I like to approach these issues from a practical perspective. There are at
least two good books online that are written by experienced out-of-body
travellers. They share in detail the exact techniques they are using and
many individual OB experiences. Although I don't recommend this type of OB
travel I find the reading very interesting. Some of their expereinces
parallell my own. I "accidentily" found myself out of the body several times
in my childhood/teenage years.

Bjorn


http://www.acadiacom.net/studynet/preface.html

>Traveling: An accidental expert's how to leave
>your body handbook, Preface, copyright 1995,
>1996 A.Guiden
>
>Back To Home Page
>
>It has been twenty-six years since my first conscious "out of body
>travel." During that time, I've sought to fit the pieces of my perplexing
>talent. It was by necessity that I discovered the "out of body" answers
>while living the questions. To date, my "travels" total more than
>thirteen hundred.
>
>It is my responsibility to share what I've learned and "go public"
>because ironically, through my trial and error years of experience, I've
>become an expert.
>
>My informal, how-to-travel book will provide the previously scattered
>or absent answers. No gadgets or gizmos are required. You'll find
>everything you need, and some laughs along the way, in this singular
>source. I'll help you to fit the pieces, just as I've learned to do.
>
>Call it "getting out" or delightful dreaming. It's your choice. I'll be
>speaking specifically about my knowledge of being "out" and address
>how "nonphysical" feels and behaves, but this doesn't dictate that you
>must buy into my conclusions. Try some of the methods and formulate
>an opinion that's correct for you. Enjoy the scenery. Interesting
>discoveries are bound to be yours, regardless of your direction.
>
>I'm sure you've heard about OOBEs (Out Of Body Experiences)
>before. You may have heard a slanted, angled, lopsided, kinda believe
>it this way or that explanation. Well, we'll have none of that here. Sit
>back and get comfortable. I'll fill you in on my story, and, if you feel
>like it, you'll soon have one of your own to tell.
>
>Table Of Contents
>
>Back To Top Of Page
>
>Back To Home Page
>
>Email To Alan Guiden
>
>
roxendal@alpinet.net

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 15 20:20:42 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:20:42 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606152223.AB01754@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Review of what Dr. M., A.D. and D. DeG. have written on
  OOBEs and PSI, with  additional comments by Daniel Caldwell

At 01:55 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>***************************************************************
>Various comments have been made by Dr. Mike Mueckler
>on the "reality" of out-of-the-body- experiences and psychic
>phenomena.
>>

Another interesting page is

http://www.lava.net/~goodin/astral.html

"The Astral Projection Home Page".

I think this is interesting because it can give theosophical web makers
ideas as to how to build successful pages.

You will find this sales pitch for astral travel:

http://www.lava.net/~goodin/library2.html

Bjorn


>
>    -- What is Astral Projection?
>
>    Astral Projection is the projection of your mental body to
>    any place outside your physical body. To do this, the
>    mental body needs a part of your astral body to serve as
>    its vehicle. It's not an unnatural thing to happen. In fact,
>    we unconsciously do it two to four times at night, when
>    we are asleep. Many little children for example report
>    'flying' dreams. Those weren't dreams, but astral
>    projections. The real fun starts if we can train our being
>    to astrally project 'at will', or, in other words, when we
>    are conscious. When you are consciously 'out there' (on
>    the Astral Plane), you can go anywhere you want, see
>    what you want to see, heal the sick, work some spells
>    and meet the other beings on the Astral Plane; the
>    elementals, the guides, other astral travellers, earthbound
>    spirits, angels etc. You can even have Astral Sex! It's
>    even more fun than Netsurfing!
>
>even more fun than Netsurfing!
>
>    -- How to do it?
>
>    There are many ways to achieve Astral Projection. In
>    fact, there are about as many different ways as there are
>    practitioners. Shamans may call up on the help of nature
>    spirits to take him out of his body. A traditional
>    Quabbalist may meditate upon the path between Yesod
>    and Tiphareth. A Golden Dawn or Enochian ritualist may
>    use the 'skrying in the spirit vision' rituals. So, there's not
>    one way to do it. Please remember this as you go along
>    and feel free to make any adjustments you want to make
>    to the following meditation. As long as it 'feels right',
>    you're doing fine. The meditation in this text, however,
>    was designed to more or less 'bridge' the different
>    methods used to Astrally Project. It's Wiccan nor
>    Crowleyian nor GD'ian nor whatever. The designers
>    (Denning&Philips) have taken a good look at all the
>    'overlapping' points in all those different rituals, and have
>    concluded that these 'overlap' points are the important
>    'points' in the process of astral projection. They managed
>    to sythesize these points into the following meditation.
>
>    -- Preparation.
>
>    You have to prepare yourself properly before you can
>    succesfully astrally project. It takes a long, long time of
>    hard work and practice before you can just sit down and
>    pop out. Only the best and most dedicated magicians
>    may achieve this status. Us mere mortals have to
>    gradually glide into the process and gently persuade our
>    bodies to let go of part of its consciousness and astral
>    body. Here are some important points:
>






roxendal@alpinet.net

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 00:26:09 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:26:09 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616002609.00670edc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Language: To MartinEuser

Martin:


I've been doing a lot of thinking since answering your last message, and, as
a result of that thinking, I have come to believe that one of the primary
problems interfering in our relationship is language. You and I don't
understand English words the same way.

You know I lived and worked in Europe for many years, and one of the things
I noticed is that no matter how well a European speaks English, they usually
think they know the language better than they do. They may have no problems
with grammar and syntax but they usually have gaps in their vocabulary. It's
hardly surprising for a person speaking in a language other than their own,
has to translate words out of their native tongue, for instance, you must
translate everything you say to me in English FROM Dutch; and it's in those
translations that problems arise.

I think that's why we have such problems with "Criticize", in English it
just doesn't carry the same connotations that it's translations from other
tongues do. In commenting on "Ruminations" you are subjecting it to
"exegesis", which in English can best be translated as "analysis", but in
German, at least, the translation would be "criticism". The two things are
hardly identical, I assure you that in proper English the word "Criticize"
carries an entirely negative connotation. The only possible exception is
when it concerns the work of a "critic" such as a drama, music, or art
critic. But even then, critics don't "criticize" they "review". And "severe
criticism" is positively pejorative. As an example: You analyze and strongly
object to things I say in "Ruminations". I severely criticize Charles
Webster Leadbeater for being a child molester. Do you see the difference?

Perhaps I should give a word or two on my background. I come from a family
that has an obsession with proper English. My Mother, who was born in St.
Petersburg Russia had governesses and tutors who taught her French, German,
and English (but not Russian) in the Nursery. When she was 9 years old she
went to Paris to live and spoke primarily French, later she moved to New
York. Her career was as Editor of a major American Magazine (Mc Call's) and
she was obsessed with good English. My Father graduated from the United
States Military academy at West Point, but went on to get a Master's degree
and his Doctorate at Oxford (he got another at the Sorbonne). In any case,
the proper usage of English is something which was instilled in my from my
earliest youth. As a writer (among other things) I am a professional
utilizer of the English language. With no offense either intended or
implied; there is no question that in any discussion regarding English
Semantics or English Philology, I am a specialist and you are very much the
amateur. For instance Dr. Bain and I disagree very strongly on certain
points of my philosophy, but we have never had a problem because both of us
are extremely careful in our language usage and we never say or imply
anything that we don't mean.

I assure you Martin that if you say to any person for whom English is the
primary language, that I criticize you severely, they will be annoyed if not
positively angered and insulted. It just doesn't mean what I hope you mean
by it.

I think that perhaps you should have given some thought to communications
problems when first you realized I was becoming insulted by your words.
Instead, at least as I see, it you became defensive. I don't really believe
it was necessary for you to do so.

alexis

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 15 20:09:02 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:09:02 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Ruminations: Martin Euser
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960615173827.006b8458@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960615173827.006b8458@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>If you actually understand my attitude towards "Core Theosophy" you will see
>that I don't criticize it, I simply find it irrelevant and unfounded in
>reality. Now for that, a reasonable person can disagree with me but not
>criticize me. Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.

Indeed I think you have, old pal!  "Criticism" can mean (and in older
English always did) nothing more than an attempt to penetrate the mind
of the other person and thus to better understand their ideas.  Thus: to
criticise your views on "core theosophy" (with or without caps!) would
be to question your basic "givens" in the matter.  To put it another
way, such a form of literary or philosophical criticism might question
the accuracy of your findings, but not the sincerity of your quest in
finding them. Whew!  Martin may well be attempting to use the word in
this sense, and not the usual "popular" negative personal one where
criticism is simply a posh word for "put-down."

The (English) English language owes much to the Dutch language, so that
Martin's use of the word may be a little archaic to modern readers - I
could be wrong, but I am *sure* he intends you no personal insult.

In friendship and all that,

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 16 02:15:31 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 22:15:31 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960615221530_329458163@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Jerry and Alex,
There is no better treatment for those who pretend to be in authority than to
introduce their faces to cream pies.

Chuck the Atrocious
Heretic
Troublemaker

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 15 00:45:58 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:45:58 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL03a.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL03a.TXT

This is the first printed reaction of the British Section to the
   events of the Leadbeater Affair following upon Annie Besant's
   November letter mentioned below.  The "Enclosed reply" is a
   separately published pamphlet, and will be reproduced, possibly
   in 2 parts, as CWL03b.TXT and CWL03c.TXT.

At first sight one supposes that the RESOLUTIONS are the same as
   those published in CWL01.TXT - in fact there are many
   differences.

------------------------------------------

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

Especially to the Members of the British Section.


THE LEADBEATER CASE


Enclosed will be found a Reply to the President's recent Letter of
   November, 1908, to the Members of the Theosophical Society, in
   which she refuses to act in accordance with the Resolution
   passed at the last Convention of this Section - calling upon her
   to take such action as would make the repudiation by the Society
   of the pernicious teachings given by Mr. Leadbeater to young
   boys, unequivocal and final.

At a largely attended and representative Meeting of Members, held
   in London on November 13th, it was decided, among other things,
   to ask for the cooperation of all those Members who are opposed
   to the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater in the Society, without
   public repudiation of the teaching which determined his
   resignation, and for that purpose the accompanying RESOLUTIONS
   have been drawn up. If, after reading our Reply to Mrs. Besant,
   you are in favour of these Resolutions, please sign the
   perforated slip and return it at once to Mr. Mead. A petition
   for the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater is being circulated by
   some of his supporters. If you should have already signed that
   Petition, but now see reason to alter your opinion, will you
   kindly write to its promoters and withdraw your name? - and
   inform Mr. Mead of your having done so.

G.R.S. MEAD.  HERBERT BURROWS.  W. KINGSLAND.  EDITH WARD.

16, SELWOOD PLACE, ONSLOW GARDENS, LONDON, S.W.  November, 1908.

----------------------------

RESOLUTIONS

THAT WHEREAS, at the last Convention of the British Section of the
   Theosophical Society, a Resolution was passed calling upon the
   President and General Council of the Society to take such action
   as would ensure "that the repudiation by the Society of this
   pernicious teaching [the teaching which determined the
   resignation of Mr. C.W. Leadbeater] may be unequivocal and
   final":

AND WHEREAS the President has replied to this resolution in a
   printed Letter to the members of the Theosophical Society, dated
   November, 1908:

AND WHEREAS, in that Letter, the President explicitly declines to
   take such action, stating that she herself only disagrees with
   the teaching, but that her "condemnation no longer applies to
   Mr. Leadbeater's advice":

AND WHEREAS, in that Letter, the President fully admits that Mr.
   Leadbeater did give the said teaching (a) previous to his
   connection with the Theosophical Society, "when a priest of the
   English Church," (b) to boys not yet addicted to the practice,
   but in whom "certain symptoms had already shown themselves
   either on the physical plane or in the aura," and (c) that "even
   though in one or two instances this may have taken place before
   what is commonly called puberty":

AND WHEREAS the President declines to put an end to the scandalous
   state of affairs involved in the identification of this teaching
   with the Theosophical Society - through the acclaiming of the
   man who stands self-convicted of it, as one worthy to he placed
   in the highest rank as a Theosophical teacher and guide, and
   also through an explicit statement by a member of the General
   Council that "no mistake was made by Mr.  Leadbeater in the
   nature of the advice he gave to his boys":

AND WHEREAS, further, the President declares that she will rejoice
   to welcome Mr. Leadbeater back to actual membership, and ignores
   the condition of public repudiation by him of his teaching:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED -

1 That we, the undersigned members of the Theosophical Society,
   reaffirm the opinion expressed by the British Section at its
   last Convention, and embodied in the following resolution, which
   was carried nem. con., that. "This Convention looks on the
   teaching given by C.W. Leadbeater to certain boys as wholly
   evil, and hereby expresses its judgment on this matter"

2 That we, the undersigned, record our opinion that no person who
   has given such teaching should be a member of the Theosophical
   Society, so long as that person has not absolutely,
   unequivocally, and publicly repudiated the said teaching and
   practice.

3 That we, the undersigned, call upon the President to adhere to
   the pledge given at the time of her election to the Presidency,
   that she would not readmit Mr. Leadbeater to membership till two
   years after his public repudiation of the said teaching, and
   then only on a large majority request of the whole Society.

{Our copy lacks the perforated slip referred to, as presumably, the
   recipient completed it and sent it to Mr. Mead.}

Scanned and uploaded by Alan Bain
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From senzar@stic.net Sun Jun 16 17:25:45 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:25:45 -0500
From: senzar@stic.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion?
Message-Id: <19960616172544234.AAA230@ras007.stic.net>


 The following copyrighted article is posted here with
 the permission of the author.


 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          "... A CHURCH ON MY GRAVE."
                 by S. Treloar
       (Copyright February 1996 S. L. Treloar)

 [The following is the address and conflation, that the
 writer would have delivered to the 120 anniversary of
 the T.S., at Toronto Lodge last November, had he been
 able to attend.]

 	My concern, now that the Theosophical Society has
 passed the 120 year mark since its inception, is whether
 it will survive in any recognizable form, or even
 survive - period. Any organization that stiffens,
 crystallizes in its beliefs and attitudes, will then
 break apart and die, to paraphrase a Master. This can be
 seen amply by looking at the history of organizations
 and in particular, religious organizations. Why does a
 form, any form, die? So that the life within can escape,
 and if not perfected, go into another form (or create
 it) that allows for further growth and expression and
 expansion in new ways. The crystallized form has become
 too rigid to suit: the form is more plastic to the needs
 of the life, until the new form begins to stiffen. The
 more changeable the form, and therefore the more
 adaptable, far longer the life of the form, organism,
 organization. The personality expressions in an
 organization type of form are part of the form, and not
 its life. The life is the Soul aspect, which ever
 evolves.

 	H. P. Blavatsky said, shortly before she died,
 speaking of what she could `foresee would be happening
 to her T.S.: "... they are going to build a church on my
 grave." And this said with tears in her eyes. Some have
 said that this was a prediction of the presence of the
 Liberal Catholic Church on the grounds of Adyar, or the
 prevalence of the Liberal Catholic Church amongst many
 T.S. members, and almost nowhere else. This is not so.
 H.P.B. was complaining that the TS she helped to found
 would become a religion, which is now to so many
 members, if not in actual legal fact, but treated as
 such. The TS was never intended to be a religion. HPB
 and the Masters quoted in *The Mahatma Letters* had many
 condemning words to say against religion and
 priestcraft, and with good reason, in particular the
 dogmatism that is part and parcel of any religion. One
 reads in the masthead page of *The Theosophical Digest*,
 "Theosophy is not a religion. The term has been used as
 an expression of the ageless wisdom of life that has
 existed since time immemorial and which may be found in
 the great spiritual traditions in the world." The TS was
 not founded to be a religion nor a set of fixed beliefs
 which is the prominent characteristic of a religion, yet
 this is the desired condition of the TS today among many
 members.

 	The purpose and pursuit of an organization should be
 those as expressed in its Objects. The organization that
 concerns me here and now is the TS. It has a set of
 Objects. These have been changed a bit over the years
 from the original set, but at present are quite
 suitable, and all members should follow them, in a broad
 pursuit of these Objects, and I would suggest that too
 many do not, but act as if the Society's purpose was to
 follow a rather restricted path of beliefs and
 doctrines, which vary somewhat between TS groups, and
 the word "dogma" also comes in, but never officially
 acknowledged.

 	The Objects of the Society are:
 a. To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of
 Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste
 or colour.
 b. The study of comparative religion, philosophy and
 science.
 c. The investigation of the unexplained laws of Nature
 and the powers latent in man.

 	The above recited vary slightly as some groups have
 sought to alter for political correctness. The only one
 I would alter would be the first to indicate the oneness
 of all Life, and reword to include at least the Animal
 Kingdom as well as the Human. However, such a wording
 thus briefly hinted at, is not the purpose of this
 essay.

 	It is to be noted that nowhere in these objects does
 it state that the purpose of the TS is the study and
 acceptance of the writings of HPB and *The Mahatma
 Letters* only, and the few other books that some claim
 as being the only ones fit and proper.

 	In a religion, there are a number of common
 characteristics, especially in the exoteric form, and
 especially in the 6th Ray religion, (in this group are
 Christianity and Islam). There is a bad tendency for
 humans, to focus on the physical plane, the material,
 that they can see and fee and bite into. Thus in
 religions, there is a desired prophet or two, and the
 personality worship of the prophet or prophetess, and
 saints, if any, and usually there are, and above all,
 THE BOOK, something that sets down the what to believe,
 and what is permissible to believe - the Authority.
 Reading *The History of the Church* by the 3rd century
 bishop Eusebius recently, I was struck by the similarity
 of the formation of a religion of Theosophy by the Loud
 Minority of its members, with the similar
 characteristics in the early Christian Church. They had
 the Book of Authority, the Bible. They were very narrow
 minded against any unbelievers and of anyone else who
 might try to redefine or present another viewpoint, one
 instance being that of Manes or Manichaeus and his
 followers, the Manicheans. The Christians worshipped at
 cemeteries, doing so at the graves of saints and
 martyrs. They were and still are to this day somewhat
 obsessed with what is actually the worship of relics of
 saints. This done to the extent that the RC Church has
 always had a problem of weaning many of its members away
 from the worship of saints and relics to the worship of
 at least a little bit of God and Jesus and/or the
 Christ.

 	This was noted in a book read a couple of years ago
 on the (current) process of how the Church makes saints.
 Noted too, in a book about the finding of the bones of
 St. Peter under the main altar of St. Peter's Cathedral
 in the Vatican, is the mention of the early Christians'
 habit of worshipping at the graves of saints, building a
 church thereon, if possible, therefore leading the
 archaeologists working in the crypt under the altar in
 St. Peter's to the conclusion that at least one set of
 the several skeletons found there was the remains of St.
 Peter. Eusebius mentions that in the two centuries of
 the history of the Church that he was covering, (he died
 339 AD) the Roman Emperors variously allowed
 Christianity or proscribed it, depending on the frequent
 change of Emperor. When Christianity was forbidden,
 along would come an edict banning Christians meeting in
 cemeteries. Why? Because that is where one could find
 Christians worshipping at saints' and martyrs' graves,
 and other religions had no such morbid habit. There is a
 great tendency for theosophists to do an equivalent form
 of over attention to what can be seen, the physical,
 rather than to the Spirit. One finds personality
 worship, usually HPB but not exclusively so. The
 Canadian TS favours HPB and the Founders and this may
 also be found, to some extent, both here and abroad.
 Other groups include those whom I call the Latter Day
 Saints - Besant, Leadbeater and perhaps some presidents
 of the TS in Adyar, providing that they are dead now.
 Great attention is given to the history of the TS
 saints, founders and prophets. This is personality
 worship, a great human trait. It will be acknowledged if
 deemed glorious, but if it is deemed that someone is
 suggesting that this worshipping is pejorative, then it
 will be denied that it is ever done. The denial lie.

 	Where in the writings of HPB which we are supposed to
 follow if we are "true theosophists", does she say that
 her personality shall be worshipped or otherwise
 glorified, and only her writings and those of certain
 approved (not by her, but by a later Loud Minority!)
 other writers are to be studied to the exclusion of all
 other works, excepting favorable commentaries on her
 writings? Our ultra conservatives deem that this is the
 only way to go, and all others must go this way too, the
 6th Ray personality trait.

 	The illusion is that they are purists: the reality is
 that they are narrow minded.

 	The question of where did HPB say that her writings
 only and her personality to be given extreme attention,
 was put to some members earlier in 1995, (and then
 spread around many more, not at my expense, which was my
 idea and intent for an economical dissemination) and not
 yet has there been an answer given, because there is
 none. HPB was a very advanced Soul, and as such would
 have no patience with the waste of time of personality
 worship. She was also very broad minded and knew and
 could quote of the writings of very, very many, thus
 implying, if nothing else, the setting of an example for
 following theosophists. Being beyond the need for
 personal accolades and ego pumping. HPB would never have
 approved of being the object of personality worship, or
 a Blavatsky personality cult, which, unfortunately,
 exists, nor would she approve of the notion, which
 exists in some quarters, that her writings were to be
 for exclusive use and belief. That being so, why do
 those who would follow her as an ideal not follow her
 teachings in all things? The answer is obvious: human
 nature which tends to exalt that which can be seen and
 touched, the Prophet or Saint, and the chosen bible, the
 form and not the spirit. Thus are religions formed of
 the exoteric type, and theosophy as presently practiced
 by so many is exoteric, of the form and not the spirit.
 In view of HPB's attitudes on these subjects discussed
 in this paragraph, why do not her avid followers not pay
 attention to her intention?

 	HPB wrote: "Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither
 possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion,
 within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical
 Society a living and healthy body, its many ugly
 features notwithstanding. Were it not also for the
 existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds
 of the students of Theosophy, such healthy divergences
 would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate
 into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed
 would take the place of the living and breathing spirit
 of Truth and an ever growing knowledge." [It is ironic,
 in a matter that will be discussed here later, that this
 quote is from a letter that HPB wrote to the American
 Section of the TS.] It is the contention of this essay
 that "... a narrow and stereotyped creed" already
 exists, contrary to HPB's wishes, and created and
 maintained by those who hold her pronouncements as of
 supreme importance. But it was ever thus, only what
 suits one's predilections are used, the rest
 conveniently ignored.

 	To be more specific: a characteristic of the 6th Ray
 person, (which 6th Ray represents Devotion to an Ideal)
 and of some others too, on other Rays, is that they
 chose only that which they want from their "Truth
 Sources" based on personal preferences, while claiming
 to follow their Ideal Source, and ignore what is said by
 the honoured Source where it does not fit their
 preferences. Authority through the filter of their
 personality: not everything goes through. Another 6th
 Ray characteristic is that all others must believe as
 the 6th Ray person does: no exceptions. If you do not so
 believe, you are going straight to Hell.

 	In the TS, as with other organizations one finds
 those individuals who know it all, *self appointed*
 custodians of Truth, I call these the Loud Minority, and
 these get a following of sheep, who can't or won't study
 enough for themselves, so believe what the LM's say, and
 thus often from the Loud Minority we often actually get
 a majority. The L.M.'s decide what is Truth, and
 therefore what can be believed and taught, and thereby
 what books are correct. It was ever thus. Christianity
 has the Bible as the only book. The Moslems have their
 Koran. A Moslem general who once said that the Koran was
 the only book that needs to be read, then proceeded to
 burn down the library at Alexandria. (Not its first
 burning - one sees a bad habit forming)

 	HPB took the trouble to quote the Buddha: "The only
 Truth in this world is that there is no Truth in it."
 The Buddha meant the physical world. While rummaging
 through *The Secret Doctrine* a few years ago for a
 suitable quotation to begin an Annual Members' Meeting,
 I read a few other things here and there that caught my
 eye. HPB said in Vol. 2, if my eidetic memory serves,
 that while there is no truth in the lower planes, (only
 maya and illusion) there was still a degree of relative
 truth, but no real truth as our Deity (or God) would
 know it. The truth of anything can only begin to be
 found when one can lift one's consciousness to the level
 of the Nirvanic Plane, (3rd from the top) as this is the
 lowest direct manifestation of the Solar Logos, or Deity
 of our system, or God, choose your favorite name. I
 recall once mentioning this in an article, to which
 someone took offense, taking this statement apart
 (showing that she had not read too much if anything of
 her *Secret Doctrine* bible) and asked "What is my
 authority for such a statement?" (for quotation). There
 is a problem with too many especially the "academics",
 they have no trust in their own powers of mind or
 reasoning, perhaps have none, and must base all that
 they allow themselves to believe on some other person,
 an "authority" rather than allowing an idea of their own
 leak in, and they will not allow another person to have
 an original idea or conclusion. It is to be noted well,
 that those who require authorities, be it HPB or
 whoever, chose from any authority only that which suits
 their own predilections and prejudices, and also only
 that which is the realm of their ken or state of
 education (or lack). Requiring "authorities" is a great
 fault among theosophists, - others too, - but I am
 concerned here chiefly with the health or lack, of the
 TS.

 	"Diversity of opinion" and "... a large amount of
 uncertainty" are those things which can lead the
 brighter to inquire further and broadly, and thereby
 have a chance of eventually finding Truth. On this
 physical plane truth will always be relative, but more
 of even that is still desirable. This is impossible if a
 broad scope of study is not allowed, or frowned upon.
 Krishnamurti said "Truth is a Pathless Land." Meaning
 that each one of us must find the way to Truth by our
 own wanderings, there is no set roadway. It is the
 intention of the Deity of our system that each of us
 shall find our way back to Him, the Source, by our own
 differing way. This is His Plan, and by the diversity He
 becomes perfected in a most broad way. Were it
 otherwise, there would be no need for Him to have
 created so many Monads. Why have a thousand or million
 people (read Souls or Monads) treading identical paths,
 having identical experiences, when to accomplish this,
 only one Monad would be needed, not a million.

 	A religion accepts only orthodox control of what can
 be taught, and believed. This has entered the TS as its
 members have shifted the TS into a religion. The Loud
 Minority have decided what is correct and what is not.
 Those who do not accept this are frowned upon, made
 uncomfortable so that they will leave, shown the door,
 or so discouraged as not to join in the first place, as
 happened with two of my relatives - who still studied of
 things occult. The decision as to what is acceptable is
 arbitrary, a position seized upon by the pushy, the
 L.M.'s, by some who have studied a fair amount and in so
 doing assume they know more, and know best, impressing a
 few sheep in the process. If HPB is the ideal, her
 intentions if followed by these purists are purely co-
 incidental. I know of an incident in the past year where
 a member was literally escorted to the door. I learned
 from another that this ousted person was much more broad
 minded that was generally favoured in that lodge. In a
 religion, of the 6th Ray at any rate, and in semi
 religions (those in the making) much energy is spent in
 seeing that all are believers of the official line, Like
 political dictatorships, which sooner or later (usually
 sooner) spend a neurotic amount of energy on political
 pureness of the masses and seeking out the dissenters
 and unbelievers, religions too get to a stage where too
 much energy is spent in seeing that the members are not
 heretics of the official line. This to the extent of
 mass murder and torture as in the Inquisition. This
 deviated 180 degrees from what the Founder of
 Christianity taught, but this never bothered the
 participants, they choose only from their sources and
 authorities that which suits their predilections. The
 R.C. Church is and has been so obviously *not* based on
 the Bible, as one might expect it to be, that even the
 clergy enlightened enough to see this and admit it,
 excuse the Church by saying that the Church is based on
 tradition. The TS has this quality too of not being
 properly based on the Founders' intentions, and has been
 for some time. No Inquisitions (yet) for which thanks be
 given,just out-easing. The TS'ers who claim HPB is the
 one and only actually do not follow her line, as I have
 complained about herein. The only reason we do not hear
 her turning over in her grave is because she was
 cremated and her ashes scattered.

 	Control of beliefs in religion or theosophy,
 orthodoxy of beliefs brought into official control, are
 all contrary to HPB's statement the "orthodoxy in
 theosophy is impossible and undesirable.", thus it is
 obvious that the interpretation of what is meant by
 "theosophy" is *not* by HPB's instructions or teachings
 but by the arbitrary whims and dictates of others, who
 set themselves up as the "true" interpreters. Are these
 others to be regarded as more qualified than HPB? There
 are recent by-law changes in another country that will
 enable the dictating of what can be taught, which
 implies that someone must set themselves up as
 interpreters of the "truth". I challenge the HPB-only's
 to come up with glorious excuses and explanations as to
 why they deviate so willingly from the example and
 teachings of HPB whom they adore and falsely claim to
 follow, taking only what suits their predilections from
 her writings.

 	HPB was a grand lady with great revelations for our
 development. What a pit so few want to follow her broad-
 minded example. One finds in her greatest advocates her
 greatest distorters.

 	While I mostly deal with the matters as found
 prominent in the Canadian end of the TS, as seeing what
 has been closest to me for over 50 years better than
 what is distant. I have to report on a matter that has
 just recently come up in a country very close
 geographically to Canada. In that country they recently
 adopted some by-law changes. This happens all the time,
 as you might say, so what. Among several changes are two
 that are quite nasty and dangerous, and the sign that
 religionism has taken over. One by-law says that the
 headquarters can now dictate to lodges, (and members by
 implication one may assume) what can be taught. This
 implies also dictating what can be believed, in order
 that the "taught" person can safely assume it to be a
 "theosophical" belief. This has the approval of Adyar,
 and is touted to be right and proper and in consonance
 with the Rules of the International (Adyar) TS. If it is
 now, what was it before so that a change was deemed
 necessary, or was it not strict enough in the previous
 wording? It has been said for a long time now, probably
 predating my existence on the physical plane, that the
 Adyar Rules in parts are very undemocratic, placing
 dictatorial powers in the hands of whoever may be
 president. This and the obedience requirement for the ES
 members to the Outer Head - and the ES is dominant in
 the Adyarian TS world-wide - places too much power in
 one person. Thus the deciding of what is "kosher" to be
 taught has the potential for abuse, and I would suggest,
 has been abused already, which I will later deal with.

 	The other objectionable part to these by-law changes
 is that they state that all assets of the lodges belong
 to Headquarters. This can mean the national headquarters
 and by implication, and in past performances, Adyar.
 This is to apply even if the regional lodge is a
 corporation. The by-law has passed. It has been
 suggested by critics of the by-law change in that
 country that the vote was light, and perhaps not all who
 participated in the vote fully understood the
 implications. Be that as it may, several lodges are very
 much opposed to these two changes, the other changes in
 the by-law amendment are rather innocuous. If this is
 what the members of that Section want, I agree that each
 has the right to go to Hell in their own way, and if
 their way is wrong, Karma will adjust, rewarding or
 biting. I do not agree with the two parts that some find
 objectionable, but cannot directly interfere at this
 distance, and won't, other than to express an opinion. I
 strongly object to the idea of asset seizure. This is
 robbery, theft, unless done when a lodge collapses and
 there are no more members, then reversion of the assets
 to the headquarters is justified. If the lodge is still
 alive, and its direction does not suit headquarters, or
 the lodge wants to separate, they should be able to and
 take their assets with them on separation, which assets,
 in my opinion belong to them.

 	The dictating of what can be taught and claiming to
 own all assets of branches is a thing well noted in
 religions, so this is another step in TS religionism, (a
 favorite word of the late Alvin B Kuhn). HPB, Judge and
 Besant all said that there was autonomy of lodges and
 Sections, and that there was no "parent" society. The
 current management in Adyar may say that there is
 autonomy, but their actions in the past few years show
 that they believe otherwise. I am a strong believer that
 there is and should be autonomy of lodges and Sections.
 When a lodge wants to leave, they should go intact. I
 know of court decisions where the headquarters can grab
 the assets, and of court decisions where the courts
 decided otherwise. When lodges left in the Canadian TS,
 I did not even bother to inform the Board of Directors
 of this, (various court decisions) as a decision either
 way would be up to the judge that one got and the
 astuteness of the lawyers, and since the outcome would
 almost as a flip of the coin, only the lawyers with
 their large fees could win. Ask Adyar how much they
 spent to lose the Denmark affair. Besides, I believe in
 the autonomy of lodges etc.

 	Either there is autonomy or there is not. There is no
 grey area. Obviously Adyar and its obedient affiliates
 believe that there is not autonomy. This and the control
 of what can be taught, which can be called the
 episcopalian system, is what this nearby country's TS
 has now. That its president, whose writings I have
 publicly expressed as a great breath of fresh air, has
 adopted - gone along with - this narrow concept, can
 best be explained by the fact that he once was in
 training to be a Roman Catholic priest. Thus such
 control would not be an unfamiliar thing to him. To
 objections to the changes in the bylaws, officialdom has
 claimed that such strictures and control of teachings
 and assets were already in place, and these changes but
 emphasized them. All the defenses for the changes I can
 argue against, but that is not my purpose here, only to
 point out that it is a crystallizing event and a further
 consolidation of theosophy as a religion.

 	One of the leaders of a lodge objecting to these
 changes in by-laws has said that part of the reason is
 fear of some lodges teaching or allowing to be taught,
 classes on Bailey books. His lodge is very broad minded
 and allows anything along occult lines to be taught. He
 pointed out that in the past few years that the
 interference by Adyar into the affairs of lodges and
 sections, in Jugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Denmark
 and Canada's excommunication, were based on the fact
 that Alice Bailey's books were being used in some
 classes. In this he was almost completely correct.
 Canada and possibly Ireland's incidents were not for
 this reason. He said that obviously Adyar and certain
 others who toed the party line were in fear of Bailey,
 and felt threatened. I agree completely with this as a
 valid psychological assessment.

 (To be concluded in July-August 1996 issue).

 ________________________________________
 The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. 77, No. 2., May-June
 1996, pp. 26-34
 Mail address of Canadian Theosophist:
 R.R. No. 3, Burk's Falls
 Ontario P0A 1C0
 Canada

From jem@vnet.net Mon Jun 17 01:23:13 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John E. Mead" 
Message-Id: <199606170123.VAA20849@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: TSA bad Karma

hi -

I have a question:

what should TSA or Adyar do to relieve/remove their karmic bounds
and past problems?  seriously,  can they?  if not,  then what
is their future?

karmic problems include:

AB and CWL
TSA/Adyar secrecy/conspiracy

my question is trying to address what it really takes (i.e. actions
in the physical plane) to put things straight for the future.

peace -

john e. mead



-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------
From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 17 02:48:11 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:48:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <199606170123.VAA20849@katie.vnet.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, John E. Mead wrote:

> hi -
>
> I have a question:
>
> what should TSA or Adyar do to relieve/remove their karmic bounds
> and past problems?  seriously,  can they?  if not,  then what
> is their future?
>
> karmic problems include:
>
> AB and CWL

	1. In spite of all the discussion that goes on here, I do not see
AB and CWL as really a Karmic Problem at all. Both have helped thousands
and thousands of people both in and outside the TS which has helped the
individuals immensely. In India, where I lived several decades, both are
still heroes for those who know about them. As for CWL, his greatest
contribution is the discovery of Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti has helped
thousands and thousands of people to better understand themselves and
their relationships with our fellow humans. AB also shares an equal
amount of good Karma in that she was totally convinced of the future role
K is going to play in the world and supported in every way she can. It is
to be pointed out that (1) discovery of Krishnaji took place after couple
of years after CWL came back as a member of TS after the complaints about
his advise to some of boys and (2) Much of the objections to CWL came
from the British and American Sections and all other Sections supported
his comeback to TS. On the balance apart from all the messages etc we see
on AB and CWL, the real Karma is on the good side of TS.


> TSA/Adyar secrecy/conspiracy
>

	I think on the secrecy question a joint effort should be made
from the Lodges and must be brought to the attention of Radha Burnier and
John Algeo. Without a unified feedback, nothing is going to happen.  I
have not seen any conspiracy yet.  The secrecy may come from the fact
that there may be a thinking from the hierarchical school that the top
person should be trusted and in some cases some may feel they are
inspired decisions so everyone should support them.

	It is the lack of two-way open and up and down communication that
is missing.

	Let us try to address these head on and see what happens. I am
confident if we but try, we can get some results.


 > my question is trying to address what it really takes (i.e.
actions > in the physical plane) to put things straight for the future.
>
> peace -
>
> john e. mead
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
> Theos-L etc. list-owner
> Member of Theosophical Society in America
> Member of Theosophy International
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 17 02:53:07 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:53:07 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960616225306_415540460@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma

John,
One method would be to open a vortex and throw all the TSA karma into it.  Of
course you never quite know what comes out of one of those things, but it
would at least be interesting.
If all goes well a group of us will be doing a vortex ritual at the
convention in July.  That should make things entertaining at the very least.
 The one we did at the Nutmeg Gathering this last Friday attracted a bat, a
lunar moth, (two things rarely if ever seen in the Chicago suburbs) every
mosquito in Illinois, a police car with one very befuddled officer, and
mysteriously appearing objects in participants hotel rooms.
Objects also mysteriously disappeared, my furnace went berserk at home and
one of our people became bothered by an obsessing activated shell that had to
be exorcised.  We now have a bottle of distilled pure evil from the exorcism,
so if you know of anyone who could use some...
The TSA needs more excitement.

Chuck

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 06:48:44 1996
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 23:48:44 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616064844.006bda54@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 04:44 PM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>> To me the only purpose of authority is
>>to be questioned.If I believe something to be pernicious nonsense it would
>>be totally dishonest of me not to say so. I really take "There is no
>>religion higher than truth" seriously.
>
>	It seems to me that what you are expressing here is
>the very spirit of theosophy itself.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>I would certainly hope so. If I read the motivation behind the "Three
Objects" (and it must be all three) correctly a spirit of open inquiry is
what is supposed to drive the theosophical movement. The motto
Satyat-Nasti-Paro-Dharma or "There's no religion higher than truth" is to be
seen as the direct inspiration behind all "Three object endeavours" and so
it has always seemed to be that ideal would preclude any development of a
"Core Doctrine" for the simple reason that such a thing would inhibit if not
prohibit altogether any open and unbiased efforts on any or all of the
"Objects". It is my very strong belief that the theosophical movement was
originally intended as an antidote to religion, as a result I regard myself
as a theological anarchist, and I truly believe that the "spirit of
theosophy" (at least from 1875-1880) was just that, spiritual anarchy.
Yelena Blavatskaya was, as I see her, an enthusiastic iconoclast, and I
admire her immensely for being so.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 07:12:42 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:12:42 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616071242.006c7284@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations: Martin Euser

At 08:27 PM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Indeed I think you have, old pal!  "Criticism" can mean (and in older
>English always did) nothing more than an attempt to penetrate the mind
>of the other person and thus to better understand their ideas.  Thus: to
>criticise your views on "core theosophy" (with or without caps!) would
>be to question your basic "givens" in the matter.  To put it another
>way, such a form of literary or philosophical criticism might question
>the accuracy of your findings, but not the sincerity of your quest in
>finding them. Whew!  Martin may well be attempting to use the word in
>this sense, and not the usual "popular" negative personal one where
>criticism is simply a posh word for "put-down."

Alan: With "criticism" in the sense of analytic exegesis, I have no problem.
Never have, never would. But we don't live in a period when archaic English
is cogent, and when I am told: "I will severely criticize you for your views
on GdeP etc", I do not think I am incorrectly analysing his meaning in the
modern popular sense of "Put-down". In american English (and I am American)
"criticism" has an unfailingly negative connotation. To me, at least, there
is an infinity of difference between "I will severely criticize your
opinions" and "I strongly disagree with your opinions". See what I mean.
Secondly, while it may simply be a personal idiosyncracy on martin's part, I
felt that what seemed to be constant sarcasm was a bit overdone, though this
too may be a problem caused by the gap between one who thinks in American
English and one who thinks in Dutch. That same linguistic problem may be one
of the reasons he finds my "ruminations" while certainly not entirely
objectionable, at least disturbing.
>
>The (English) English language owes much to the Dutch language, so that
>Martin's use of the word may be a little archaic to modern readers - I
>could be wrong, but I am *sure* he intends you no personal insult.

Well the Dutch contribution to the English language is many centuries old.
If Dutch has any really close linguistic connections they'd be with Flemish
and German. As to whether Martin intends me any personal insult. I would
very much prefer to believe that he does not, but I'm going to have to
"stand off" and see.
>
>In friendship and all that,
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
always in friendship

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 07:26:10 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:26:10 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616072610.006b2f4c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 10:16 PM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Jerry and Alex,
>There is no better treatment for those who pretend to be in authority than to
>introduce their faces to cream pies.
>
>Chuck the Atrocious
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>No one agrees with that philosophy more enthusiastically than I do. BUT, as
you can see from the mail I occasionally get, not everyone agrees with us.

By the way, I've decided to join you in "filtering" Mr. Roxendahl, not only
can't he understand why I don't like ex-Nazis (I don't think there are any
"ex-Nazis"), and why I think the whole German Nation alive at the time who
were not active in the resistance are guilty of the Nazi's crimes, he's an
ex-communist, and for reasons you are well aware of, I have an in born
aversion to Bolsheviks, and a strong personal reason to dislike them, but I
also have a problem believing in ("ex-communists").

Alexis

From RAINGER@delphi.com Sun Jun 16 09:54:35 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:54:35 -0500 (EST)
From: RAINGER@delphi.com
Subject: Information Wanted
Message-Id: <01I5YQ3A8JEQ8X17XX@delphi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Dear All

I am looking for a list on the net that can give
me a calendar listing of New Age events etc and
any addresses on the net that deal specifically
with theosophy.

I am in the process of producing an esoteric magazine
that will be distributed in the Gulf states and would
appreciate any information on events taking place anywhere
in the world so that they can be publicised in the magazine.
Due to start publication in September 96.

Best wishes - Michael
MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
22 Prices Lane
York YO2 1AL
England

Tel:01904 670203
E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
From RAINGER@delphi.com Sun Jun 16 09:54:44 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:54:44 -0500 (EST)
From: RAINGER@delphi.com
Subject: Wizard Bookshelf
Message-Id: <01I5YQ3H9GCI8X17XX@delphi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Dear Friends

Can anybody tell me whether the company called
the Wizards Bookshelf which produced "Secret
Doctrine" reference books is still in existence?

If it is I am anxious to obtain its address because
I am desperately seeking one of their titles.

Best wishes - Michael

MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
22 Prices Lane
York YO2 1AL
England

Tel:01904 670203
E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
From euser@euronet.nl Sun Jun 16 11:35:36 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 13:35:36 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606161135.NAA12699@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: attempt made

Alexis: your test message through demon has succeeded. I saw it today,
when I checked the newsgroup.

Martin


>Well Martin I just sent a "test message" via the alternate gateway:
news.demon.co.uk I also sent 5 other via other gateways posted by Doss.
>Now we'll just have to see what happens. I have no idea how long such a
"shuttle" process takes.
>
>Thanks
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>
>

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 16 16:49:17 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:49:17 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606161649.JAA06031@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy:  Why the cut off date of 1880?

Alexis writes:

 It is my very strong belief that the theosophical movement was
originally intended as an antidote to religion, as a result I regard myself
as a theological anarchist, and I truly believe that the "spirit of
theosophy" (at least from 1875-1880) was just that, spiritual anarchy.
Yelena Blavatskaya was, as I see her, an enthusiastic iconoclast, and I
admire her immensely for being so.>At 04:44 PM 6/15/96 -0400, you wrote:


Alexis, what happened in 1881?  Why do you stop at 1880?  HPB was
alive until 1891. Was she less of an enthusiastic iconoclast from
1881 till 1891?

Daniel

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 16 16:54:55 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:54:55 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606161654.JAA06945@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Wizard Bookshelf

Michael,

Wizards Bookshelf is alive and well in San Diego.

Please contact Richard Robb the owner at:

Wizards Bookshelf
P.O. Box 6600
San Diego, California 92166
U.S.A.

Any of you theos-l people can get a catalog from
Wizards Bookshelf by simply writing to the above
address.  Wizards sells an excellent edition of
A.P. Sinnett's ESOTERIC BUDDISM, first published
1883.  Wizards has reprinted the 5th edition which
HPB quotes in the SD.

Daniel

>Dear Friends
>
>Can anybody tell me whether the company called
>the Wizards Bookshelf which produced "Secret
>Doctrine" reference books is still in existence?
>
>If it is I am anxious to obtain its address because
>I am desperately seeking one of their titles.
>
>Best wishes - Michael
>
>MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
>22 Prices Lane
>York YO2 1AL
>England
>
>Tel:01904 670203
>E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
>
>

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 16 14:59:26 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 10:59:26 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606161701.AA08226@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 03:36 AM 6/16/96 -0400, Alexis wrote:
>
>By the way, I've decided to join you in "filtering" Mr. Roxendahl, not only
>can't he understand why I don't like ex-Nazis (I don't think there are any
>"ex-Nazis"), and why I think the whole German Nation alive at the time who
were not active in the resistance are guilty of the Nazi's crimes,

Alexis, I do not have any problems understanding why you don't like
ex-Nazis. I also don't have any problems understanding  why you think the
whole German Nation alive at the time who were not active in the resistance
are guilty of the Nazi's crimes. In our "discussion" my understanding of
your position has not been an issue.

Also, for the record, I have actively been fighting communism since my
spiritual "conversion".

> he's an
>ex-communist, and for reasons you are well aware of, I have an in born
>aversion to Bolsheviks, and a strong personal reason to dislike them, but I
>also have a problem believing in ("ex-communists").

Your way of relating to the world and people makes less and less sense to
me. Not believing that people can change their political (or any other)
views just doesn't - make sense!  It seems like you have a psychological
need to sit in the judgement seat and condemn anybody who is "different"
from your approved doctrine.

I understand that you have to put me on your filter list. To keep a
conversation going with me would just keep exposing your immature and
unrealistic world view and attitudes, something you don't want to confront.

I find it interesting that the two most aggressive and insulting people on
this list have quickly put me on their filter lists. No doubt because I
challenge their way of treating and condemning others.

Alexis, if others on this list treated you as you and Chuck treat me you
wouldn't have ANYONE to talk to at all. You would have been 100% filtered a
long time ago.

Bjorn



roxendal@alpinet.net

From senzar@stic.net Sun Jun 16 17:25:45 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:25:45 -0500
From: senzar@stic.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion?
Message-Id: <19960616172544234.AAA230@ras007.stic.net>


 The following copyrighted article is posted here with
 the permission of the author.


 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          "... A CHURCH ON MY GRAVE."
                 by S. Treloar
       (Copyright February 1996 S. L. Treloar)

 [The following is the address and conflation, that the
 writer would have delivered to the 120 anniversary of
 the T.S., at Toronto Lodge last November, had he been
 able to attend.]

 	My concern, now that the Theosophical Society has
 passed the 120 year mark since its inception, is whether
 it will survive in any recognizable form, or even
 survive - period. Any organization that stiffens,
 crystallizes in its beliefs and attitudes, will then
 break apart and die, to paraphrase a Master. This can be
 seen amply by looking at the history of organizations
 and in particular, religious organizations. Why does a
 form, any form, die? So that the life within can escape,
 and if not perfected, go into another form (or create
 it) that allows for further growth and expression and
 expansion in new ways. The crystallized form has become
 too rigid to suit: the form is more plastic to the needs
 of the life, until the new form begins to stiffen. The
 more changeable the form, and therefore the more
 adaptable, far longer the life of the form, organism,
 organization. The personality expressions in an
 organization type of form are part of the form, and not
 its life. The life is the Soul aspect, which ever
 evolves.

 	H. P. Blavatsky said, shortly before she died,
 speaking of what she could `foresee would be happening
 to her T.S.: "... they are going to build a church on my
 grave." And this said with tears in her eyes. Some have
 said that this was a prediction of the presence of the
 Liberal Catholic Church on the grounds of Adyar, or the
 prevalence of the Liberal Catholic Church amongst many
 T.S. members, and almost nowhere else. This is not so.
 H.P.B. was complaining that the TS she helped to found
 would become a religion, which is now to so many
 members, if not in actual legal fact, but treated as
 such. The TS was never intended to be a religion. HPB
 and the Masters quoted in *The Mahatma Letters* had many
 condemning words to say against religion and
 priestcraft, and with good reason, in particular the
 dogmatism that is part and parcel of any religion. One
 reads in the masthead page of *The Theosophical Digest*,
 "Theosophy is not a religion. The term has been used as
 an expression of the ageless wisdom of life that has
 existed since time immemorial and which may be found in
 the great spiritual traditions in the world." The TS was
 not founded to be a religion nor a set of fixed beliefs
 which is the prominent characteristic of a religion, yet
 this is the desired condition of the TS today among many
 members.

 	The purpose and pursuit of an organization should be
 those as expressed in its Objects. The organization that
 concerns me here and now is the TS. It has a set of
 Objects. These have been changed a bit over the years
 from the original set, but at present are quite
 suitable, and all members should follow them, in a broad
 pursuit of these Objects, and I would suggest that too
 many do not, but act as if the Society's purpose was to
 follow a rather restricted path of beliefs and
 doctrines, which vary somewhat between TS groups, and
 the word "dogma" also comes in, but never officially
 acknowledged.

 	The Objects of the Society are:
 a. To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of
 Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste
 or colour.
 b. The study of comparative religion, philosophy and
 science.
 c. The investigation of the unexplained laws of Nature
 and the powers latent in man.

 	The above recited vary slightly as some groups have
 sought to alter for political correctness. The only one
 I would alter would be the first to indicate the oneness
 of all Life, and reword to include at least the Animal
 Kingdom as well as the Human. However, such a wording
 thus briefly hinted at, is not the purpose of this
 essay.

 	It is to be noted that nowhere in these objects does
 it state that the purpose of the TS is the study and
 acceptance of the writings of HPB and *The Mahatma
 Letters* only, and the few other books that some claim
 as being the only ones fit and proper.

 	In a religion, there are a number of common
 characteristics, especially in the exoteric form, and
 especially in the 6th Ray religion, (in this group are
 Christianity and Islam). There is a bad tendency for
 humans, to focus on the physical plane, the material,
 that they can see and fee and bite into. Thus in
 religions, there is a desired prophet or two, and the
 personality worship of the prophet or prophetess, and
 saints, if any, and usually there are, and above all,
 THE BOOK, something that sets down the what to believe,
 and what is permissible to believe - the Authority.
 Reading *The History of the Church* by the 3rd century
 bishop Eusebius recently, I was struck by the similarity
 of the formation of a religion of Theosophy by the Loud
 Minority of its members, with the similar
 characteristics in the early Christian Church. They had
 the Book of Authority, the Bible. They were very narrow
 minded against any unbelievers and of anyone else who
 might try to redefine or present another viewpoint, one
 instance being that of Manes or Manichaeus and his
 followers, the Manicheans. The Christians worshipped at
 cemeteries, doing so at the graves of saints and
 martyrs. They were and still are to this day somewhat
 obsessed with what is actually the worship of relics of
 saints. This done to the extent that the RC Church has
 always had a problem of weaning many of its members away
 from the worship of saints and relics to the worship of
 at least a little bit of God and Jesus and/or the
 Christ.

 	This was noted in a book read a couple of years ago
 on the (current) process of how the Church makes saints.
 Noted too, in a book about the finding of the bones of
 St. Peter under the main altar of St. Peter's Cathedral
 in the Vatican, is the mention of the early Christians'
 habit of worshipping at the graves of saints, building a
 church thereon, if possible, therefore leading the
 archaeologists working in the crypt under the altar in
 St. Peter's to the conclusion that at least one set of
 the several skeletons found there was the remains of St.
 Peter. Eusebius mentions that in the two centuries of
 the history of the Church that he was covering, (he died
 339 AD) the Roman Emperors variously allowed
 Christianity or proscribed it, depending on the frequent
 change of Emperor. When Christianity was forbidden,
 along would come an edict banning Christians meeting in
 cemeteries. Why? Because that is where one could find
 Christians worshipping at saints' and martyrs' graves,
 and other religions had no such morbid habit. There is a
 great tendency for theosophists to do an equivalent form
 of over attention to what can be seen, the physical,
 rather than to the Spirit. One finds personality
 worship, usually HPB but not exclusively so. The
 Canadian TS favours HPB and the Founders and this may
 also be found, to some extent, both here and abroad.
 Other groups include those whom I call the Latter Day
 Saints - Besant, Leadbeater and perhaps some presidents
 of the TS in Adyar, providing that they are dead now.
 Great attention is given to the history of the TS
 saints, founders and prophets. This is personality
 worship, a great human trait. It will be acknowledged if
 deemed glorious, but if it is deemed that someone is
 suggesting that this worshipping is pejorative, then it
 will be denied that it is ever done. The denial lie.

 	Where in the writings of HPB which we are supposed to
 follow if we are "true theosophists", does she say that
 her personality shall be worshipped or otherwise
 glorified, and only her writings and those of certain
 approved (not by her, but by a later Loud Minority!)
 other writers are to be studied to the exclusion of all
 other works, excepting favorable commentaries on her
 writings? Our ultra conservatives deem that this is the
 only way to go, and all others must go this way too, the
 6th Ray personality trait.

 	The illusion is that they are purists: the reality is
 that they are narrow minded.

 	The question of where did HPB say that her writings
 only and her personality to be given extreme attention,
 was put to some members earlier in 1995, (and then
 spread around many more, not at my expense, which was my
 idea and intent for an economical dissemination) and not
 yet has there been an answer given, because there is
 none. HPB was a very advanced Soul, and as such would
 have no patience with the waste of time of personality
 worship. She was also very broad minded and knew and
 could quote of the writings of very, very many, thus
 implying, if nothing else, the setting of an example for
 following theosophists. Being beyond the need for
 personal accolades and ego pumping. HPB would never have
 approved of being the object of personality worship, or
 a Blavatsky personality cult, which, unfortunately,
 exists, nor would she approve of the notion, which
 exists in some quarters, that her writings were to be
 for exclusive use and belief. That being so, why do
 those who would follow her as an ideal not follow her
 teachings in all things? The answer is obvious: human
 nature which tends to exalt that which can be seen and
 touched, the Prophet or Saint, and the chosen bible, the
 form and not the spirit. Thus are religions formed of
 the exoteric type, and theosophy as presently practiced
 by so many is exoteric, of the form and not the spirit.
 In view of HPB's attitudes on these subjects discussed
 in this paragraph, why do not her avid followers not pay
 attention to her intention?

 	HPB wrote: "Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither
 possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion,
 within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical
 Society a living and healthy body, its many ugly
 features notwithstanding. Were it not also for the
 existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds
 of the students of Theosophy, such healthy divergences
 would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate
 into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed
 would take the place of the living and breathing spirit
 of Truth and an ever growing knowledge." [It is ironic,
 in a matter that will be discussed here later, that this
 quote is from a letter that HPB wrote to the American
 Section of the TS.] It is the contention of this essay
 that "... a narrow and stereotyped creed" already
 exists, contrary to HPB's wishes, and created and
 maintained by those who hold her pronouncements as of
 supreme importance. But it was ever thus, only what
 suits one's predilections are used, the rest
 conveniently ignored.

 	To be more specific: a characteristic of the 6th Ray
 person, (which 6th Ray represents Devotion to an Ideal)
 and of some others too, on other Rays, is that they
 chose only that which they want from their "Truth
 Sources" based on personal preferences, while claiming
 to follow their Ideal Source, and ignore what is said by
 the honoured Source where it does not fit their
 preferences. Authority through the filter of their
 personality: not everything goes through. Another 6th
 Ray characteristic is that all others must believe as
 the 6th Ray person does: no exceptions. If you do not so
 believe, you are going straight to Hell.

 	In the TS, as with other organizations one finds
 those individuals who know it all, *self appointed*
 custodians of Truth, I call these the Loud Minority, and
 these get a following of sheep, who can't or won't study
 enough for themselves, so believe what the LM's say, and
 thus often from the Loud Minority we often actually get
 a majority. The L.M.'s decide what is Truth, and
 therefore what can be believed and taught, and thereby
 what books are correct. It was ever thus. Christianity
 has the Bible as the only book. The Moslems have their
 Koran. A Moslem general who once said that the Koran was
 the only book that needs to be read, then proceeded to
 burn down the library at Alexandria. (Not its first
 burning - one sees a bad habit forming)

 	HPB took the trouble to quote the Buddha: "The only
 Truth in this world is that there is no Truth in it."
 The Buddha meant the physical world. While rummaging
 through *The Secret Doctrine* a few years ago for a
 suitable quotation to begin an Annual Members' Meeting,
 I read a few other things here and there that caught my
 eye. HPB said in Vol. 2, if my eidetic memory serves,
 that while there is no truth in the lower planes, (only
 maya and illusion) there was still a degree of relative
 truth, but no real truth as our Deity (or God) would
 know it. The truth of anything can only begin to be
 found when one can lift one's consciousness to the level
 of the Nirvanic Plane, (3rd from the top) as this is the
 lowest direct manifestation of the Solar Logos, or Deity
 of our system, or God, choose your favorite name. I
 recall once mentioning this in an article, to which
 someone took offense, taking this statement apart
 (showing that she had not read too much if anything of
 her *Secret Doctrine* bible) and asked "What is my
 authority for such a statement?" (for quotation). There
 is a problem with too many especially the "academics",
 they have no trust in their own powers of mind or
 reasoning, perhaps have none, and must base all that
 they allow themselves to believe on some other person,
 an "authority" rather than allowing an idea of their own
 leak in, and they will not allow another person to have
 an original idea or conclusion. It is to be noted well,
 that those who require authorities, be it HPB or
 whoever, chose from any authority only that which suits
 their own predilections and prejudices, and also only
 that which is the realm of their ken or state of
 education (or lack). Requiring "authorities" is a great
 fault among theosophists, - others too, - but I am
 concerned here chiefly with the health or lack, of the
 TS.

 	"Diversity of opinion" and "... a large amount of
 uncertainty" are those things which can lead the
 brighter to inquire further and broadly, and thereby
 have a chance of eventually finding Truth. On this
 physical plane truth will always be relative, but more
 of even that is still desirable. This is impossible if a
 broad scope of study is not allowed, or frowned upon.
 Krishnamurti said "Truth is a Pathless Land." Meaning
 that each one of us must find the way to Truth by our
 own wanderings, there is no set roadway. It is the
 intention of the Deity of our system that each of us
 shall find our way back to Him, the Source, by our own
 differing way. This is His Plan, and by the diversity He
 becomes perfected in a most broad way. Were it
 otherwise, there would be no need for Him to have
 created so many Monads. Why have a thousand or million
 people (read Souls or Monads) treading identical paths,
 having identical experiences, when to accomplish this,
 only one Monad would be needed, not a million.

 	A religion accepts only orthodox control of what can
 be taught, and believed. This has entered the TS as its
 members have shifted the TS into a religion. The Loud
 Minority have decided what is correct and what is not.
 Those who do not accept this are frowned upon, made
 uncomfortable so that they will leave, shown the door,
 or so discouraged as not to join in the first place, as
 happened with two of my relatives - who still studied of
 things occult. The decision as to what is acceptable is
 arbitrary, a position seized upon by the pushy, the
 L.M.'s, by some who have studied a fair amount and in so
 doing assume they know more, and know best, impressing a
 few sheep in the process. If HPB is the ideal, her
 intentions if followed by these purists are purely co-
 incidental. I know of an incident in the past year where
 a member was literally escorted to the door. I learned
 from another that this ousted person was much more broad
 minded that was generally favoured in that lodge. In a
 religion, of the 6th Ray at any rate, and in semi
 religions (those in the making) much energy is spent in
 seeing that all are believers of the official line, Like
 political dictatorships, which sooner or later (usually
 sooner) spend a neurotic amount of energy on political
 pureness of the masses and seeking out the dissenters
 and unbelievers, religions too get to a stage where too
 much energy is spent in seeing that the members are not
 heretics of the official line. This to the extent of
 mass murder and torture as in the Inquisition. This
 deviated 180 degrees from what the Founder of
 Christianity taught, but this never bothered the
 participants, they choose only from their sources and
 authorities that which suits their predilections. The
 R.C. Church is and has been so obviously *not* based on
 the Bible, as one might expect it to be, that even the
 clergy enlightened enough to see this and admit it,
 excuse the Church by saying that the Church is based on
 tradition. The TS has this quality too of not being
 properly based on the Founders' intentions, and has been
 for some time. No Inquisitions (yet) for which thanks be
 given,just out-easing. The TS'ers who claim HPB is the
 one and only actually do not follow her line, as I have
 complained about herein. The only reason we do not hear
 her turning over in her grave is because she was
 cremated and her ashes scattered.

 	Control of beliefs in religion or theosophy,
 orthodoxy of beliefs brought into official control, are
 all contrary to HPB's statement the "orthodoxy in
 theosophy is impossible and undesirable.", thus it is
 obvious that the interpretation of what is meant by
 "theosophy" is *not* by HPB's instructions or teachings
 but by the arbitrary whims and dictates of others, who
 set themselves up as the "true" interpreters. Are these
 others to be regarded as more qualified than HPB? There
 are recent by-law changes in another country that will
 enable the dictating of what can be taught, which
 implies that someone must set themselves up as
 interpreters of the "truth". I challenge the HPB-only's
 to come up with glorious excuses and explanations as to
 why they deviate so willingly from the example and
 teachings of HPB whom they adore and falsely claim to
 follow, taking only what suits their predilections from
 her writings.

 	HPB was a grand lady with great revelations for our
 development. What a pit so few want to follow her broad-
 minded example. One finds in her greatest advocates her
 greatest distorters.

 	While I mostly deal with the matters as found
 prominent in the Canadian end of the TS, as seeing what
 has been closest to me for over 50 years better than
 what is distant. I have to report on a matter that has
 just recently come up in a country very close
 geographically to Canada. In that country they recently
 adopted some by-law changes. This happens all the time,
 as you might say, so what. Among several changes are two
 that are quite nasty and dangerous, and the sign that
 religionism has taken over. One by-law says that the
 headquarters can now dictate to lodges, (and members by
 implication one may assume) what can be taught. This
 implies also dictating what can be believed, in order
 that the "taught" person can safely assume it to be a
 "theosophical" belief. This has the approval of Adyar,
 and is touted to be right and proper and in consonance
 with the Rules of the International (Adyar) TS. If it is
 now, what was it before so that a change was deemed
 necessary, or was it not strict enough in the previous
 wording? It has been said for a long time now, probably
 predating my existence on the physical plane, that the
 Adyar Rules in parts are very undemocratic, placing
 dictatorial powers in the hands of whoever may be
 president. This and the obedience requirement for the ES
 members to the Outer Head - and the ES is dominant in
 the Adyarian TS world-wide - places too much power in
 one person. Thus the deciding of what is "kosher" to be
 taught has the potential for abuse, and I would suggest,
 has been abused already, which I will later deal with.

 	The other objectionable part to these by-law changes
 is that they state that all assets of the lodges belong
 to Headquarters. This can mean the national headquarters
 and by implication, and in past performances, Adyar.
 This is to apply even if the regional lodge is a
 corporation. The by-law has passed. It has been
 suggested by critics of the by-law change in that
 country that the vote was light, and perhaps not all who
 participated in the vote fully understood the
 implications. Be that as it may, several lodges are very
 much opposed to these two changes, the other changes in
 the by-law amendment are rather innocuous. If this is
 what the members of that Section want, I agree that each
 has the right to go to Hell in their own way, and if
 their way is wrong, Karma will adjust, rewarding or
 biting. I do not agree with the two parts that some find
 objectionable, but cannot directly interfere at this
 distance, and won't, other than to express an opinion. I
 strongly object to the idea of asset seizure. This is
 robbery, theft, unless done when a lodge collapses and
 there are no more members, then reversion of the assets
 to the headquarters is justified. If the lodge is still
 alive, and its direction does not suit headquarters, or
 the lodge wants to separate, they should be able to and
 take their assets with them on separation, which assets,
 in my opinion belong to them.

 	The dictating of what can be taught and claiming to
 own all assets of branches is a thing well noted in
 religions, so this is another step in TS religionism, (a
 favorite word of the late Alvin B Kuhn). HPB, Judge and
 Besant all said that there was autonomy of lodges and
 Sections, and that there was no "parent" society. The
 current management in Adyar may say that there is
 autonomy, but their actions in the past few years show
 that they believe otherwise. I am a strong believer that
 there is and should be autonomy of lodges and Sections.
 When a lodge wants to leave, they should go intact. I
 know of court decisions where the headquarters can grab
 the assets, and of court decisions where the courts
 decided otherwise. When lodges left in the Canadian TS,
 I did not even bother to inform the Board of Directors
 of this, (various court decisions) as a decision either
 way would be up to the judge that one got and the
 astuteness of the lawyers, and since the outcome would
 almost as a flip of the coin, only the lawyers with
 their large fees could win. Ask Adyar how much they
 spent to lose the Denmark affair. Besides, I believe in
 the autonomy of lodges etc.

 	Either there is autonomy or there is not. There is no
 grey area. Obviously Adyar and its obedient affiliates
 believe that there is not autonomy. This and the control
 of what can be taught, which can be called the
 episcopalian system, is what this nearby country's TS
 has now. That its president, whose writings I have
 publicly expressed as a great breath of fresh air, has
 adopted - gone along with - this narrow concept, can
 best be explained by the fact that he once was in
 training to be a Roman Catholic priest. Thus such
 control would not be an unfamiliar thing to him. To
 objections to the changes in the bylaws, officialdom has
 claimed that such strictures and control of teachings
 and assets were already in place, and these changes but
 emphasized them. All the defenses for the changes I can
 argue against, but that is not my purpose here, only to
 point out that it is a crystallizing event and a further
 consolidation of theosophy as a religion.

 	One of the leaders of a lodge objecting to these
 changes in by-laws has said that part of the reason is
 fear of some lodges teaching or allowing to be taught,
 classes on Bailey books. His lodge is very broad minded
 and allows anything along occult lines to be taught. He
 pointed out that in the past few years that the
 interference by Adyar into the affairs of lodges and
 sections, in Jugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Denmark
 and Canada's excommunication, were based on the fact
 that Alice Bailey's books were being used in some
 classes. In this he was almost completely correct.
 Canada and possibly Ireland's incidents were not for
 this reason. He said that obviously Adyar and certain
 others who toed the party line were in fear of Bailey,
 and felt threatened. I agree completely with this as a
 valid psychological assessment.

 (To be concluded in July-August 1996 issue).

 ________________________________________
 The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. 77, No. 2., May-June
 1996, pp. 26-34
 Mail address of Canadian Theosophist:
 R.R. No. 3, Burk's Falls
 Ontario P0A 1C0
 Canada

From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 16 17:36:19 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:36:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: AT
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Has anyone received the AT in the last one or two days?


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 16 17:54:27 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:54:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <9606161701.AA08226@alpinet.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
> At 03:36 AM 6/16/96 -0400, Alexis wrote:
> >
> >By the way, I've decided to join you in "filtering" Mr. Roxendahl, not only
> >can't he understand why I don't like ex-Nazis (I don't think there are any
> >"ex-Nazis"), and why I think the whole German Nation alive at the time who
> were not active in the resistance are guilty of the Nazi's crimes,
>
> Alexis, I do not have any problems understanding why you don't like
> ex-Nazis. I also don't have any problems understanding  why you think the
> whole German Nation alive at the time who were not active in the resistance
> are guilty of the Nazi's crimes. In our "discussion" my understanding of
> your position has not been an issue.
>>>>>clip>>>>
> Bjorn>
>
>
> roxendal@alpinet.net


Bjorn:

To me what you are now is the most important thing. I enjoyed your postings
and I want you to know that I read or scan every message posted here. I
am sure that there are very many others who do the same. I have three
mail programs which has filter capabilities and one has even the ability
to scan inside of the message and filter or even reply as programmed. But
I do not filter anyone's message as I see every human being as my friend.
The first object of TS in action!


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 18:18:51 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:18:51 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616181851.006d670c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: attempt made

At 07:52 AM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis: your test message through demon has succeeded. I saw it today,
>when I checked the newsgroup.
>
>Martin
>
>
>>Well Martin I just sent a "test message" via the alternate gateway:
>news.demon.co.uk I also sent 5 other via other gateways posted by Doss.
>>Now we'll just have to see what happens. I have no idea how long such a
>"shuttle" process takes.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>alexis dolgorukii
>>
>>
>
>
>Martin:

Thanks very much. I have only just signed on to Theos-L, the first messages
I received were "failed delivery" messages from 5 out of the 6 alternative
gateways I attempted last night. The only one I didn't get such a message
for was the one you suggested. I had assumed that one "made it through" but
I am doubly glad to receive your message that it did. As soon as I'm done
with my messages. I'll switch to netscape to see what's new (if anything) on
alt.theosophy and then sit down, take some time, and compose the best
message I can for alt.theosophy. I certainly hop that as access to it
improves alt.theosophy will perform a useful service both for long-time
theosophists and the simply curious.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 18:46:40 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:46:40 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616184640.006c4fcc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy:  Why the cut off date of 1880?

At 12:52 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Alexis, what happened in 1881?  Why do you stop at 1880?  HPB was
>alive until 1891. Was she less of an enthusiastic iconoclast from
>1881 till 1891?
>
>Daniel
>
>
>Daniel:

Glad to answer your question. And yes, I can say that your summation is
probably the most important one. She did stop being such an enthusiastic
iconoclast in 1880. As I see it, when she began "pushing" not Eastern
Philosophy, but eastern religion and "The Mahatmas"; she ceased to be an
iconoclast altogether and became a hagiographer.

As I see it, and of course this is simply a personal view of one who has
studied the over-all picture for many years, the character and flavor of
Theosophy just prior to, and for all times after, it's removal to India was
an almost 180 degree "turn-around" from the theosophical movement that was
founded in New York city in 1875. It was distinctly a gigantic change from
Yelena Blavatskaya's activities prior to 1875.

As I said earlier, this was what I consider to be the "cut-off" line between
theosophy as an antidote to religion and Theosophy as religion. I am an
entirely "equal opportunity disapprover". I disapprove very strongly of ALL
religions, every single one of them, with no exceptions, as I believe they
foster and cater to the least attractive aspects of homo-sapient character.
The kind of Theosophy I call "Orthodox Theosophy" or "Literalist Theosophy"
of course joins all other religions as objects of my disapprobation.

It seems to me that there's an absolutely awesome chasm between the "Second
Object" which encourages the unbiased comparative scrutiny of all religions,
all philosophies, and "science" as it existed in 1875; and the "Pushing" of
Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism crossed with Dualistic Brahmanism that became the
hall mark of Theosophy just before, and then after, the removal to India. Do
you see what I mean? There's a big difference between encouraging the
comparative study of all religions and proselytizing for one particular
blend of religions.

Why did I choose 1880? Well, it's three years after the publication of "Isis
Unveiled" in 1877. Now "Isis" is, I believe an perfect example of her
"enthusiastic iconoclasm" and it seems to me based upon readings of her
writings, Olcott's reminiscences in "Old Diary Leaves", and various
histories of the Theosophical Society, that the period between 1878-80
showed the beginnings of a "change in focus". One could almost believe that
one "mission" ended, and another "mission" began. But that is nothing one
can be definitive about.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 18:49:50 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:49:50 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616184950.006c34b4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Wizard Bookshelf

At 12:57 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Michael,
>
>Wizards Bookshelf is alive and well in San Diego.
>
>Please contact Richard Robb the owner at:
>
>Wizards Bookshelf
>P.O. Box 6600
>San Diego, California 92166
>U.S.A.
>
>Any of you theos-l people can get a catalog from
>Wizards Bookshelf by simply writing to the above
>address.  Wizards sells an excellent edition of
>A.P. Sinnett's ESOTERIC BUDDISM, first published
>1883.  Wizards has reprinted the 5th edition which
>HPB quotes in the SD.
>
>Daniel
>
Thank you Daniel. I am always looking to increase and improve my library, so
this will be a useful new source.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 16 18:58:09 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:58:09 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960616185809.006c6004@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: AT

At 01:39 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Has anyone received the AT in the last one or two days?
>
>
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
>
>
>
>Not I.

alexis

From euser@euronet.nl Sun Jun 16 21:14:07 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:14:07 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606162114.XAA25021@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

Alexis>Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.

Alexis: it's quite possible. However, I don't equate criticism on
        ideas and perceptions with flaming someone.
	Besides all of this I would like to see people who are
 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.

Martin

From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 16 22:11:43 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 17:11:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: alt.theosophy
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

e-mail gateways are on the way out because of the programs which directly
post to newsservers that each ISP has. So I think direct posting is the
most efficient way to post to newsgroups.


    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 16 22:05:22 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:05:22 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606170007.AA10701@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: FAQ on Theosophy

>Return-Path:
<@sovcom.kiae.su,@phantom.uucp,@gate.phantom.ru:Kay_Ziatz@p4.f360.n5020.z2.f
idonet.org>
>To: roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:05:36 +0300
>From: Kay Ziatz 
>Reply-To: Kay Ziatz 
>Subject: FAQ on Theosophy
>
>
>> Sounds like a plan. As long as it is on a disc we can convert it into
>ASCII
>> from just about anything. Who has the text?
> I have of course, but it's in Russian :)
>FYI: Most convenient program for scanning English documents is OmniPage
>     Direct. It recognized even header "Occultism" which was hurled like
>     an arc (in Theosophist'1914).
>If you have a HP scanner, demo version should be included. I have configu-
>ration file to convert demo version to not full, but working version.
>
>You may forward this to theos-l because I can't now.
>
>      With best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev
>           
>
>
>
roxendal@alpinet.net

From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Jun 17 00:57:28 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 17:57:28 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606170057.AA16822@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Re: Unveiled Isis and Irenaeus


Abrantes writes:

>We have a small problem. My portuguese edition, was published in
>four volumes, and I think that your original english edition in
>two.

JHE
I'm using a photographic copy of the original 1877 edition, which
was, as you say, published in two volumes.  The first volume was
subtitled "Science," the Second subtitled "Theology."  Most
likely, your Portuguese translation uses the same chapter and
book  divisions, and just divided each volume in half, thus
making four volumes instead of two.  Therefore, Chapter VII of
Book II should correspond to Chapter VII of Book III in your
translation.

A
>To facilitate identification, now I will refer to my edition,
>saying to you the start and final page of the chapter. For
>instance "bible-kaleidoscopist" is found at BOOK III, chapter
>VII (start page 256, and final page 296) at page 267.

JHE
Yes, that might help somewhat.  It tells me that at that your
translation is about 33 pages off from the original, in this
case, so I can add 33 to the page number you give and come close
to your citation.

A
>We can also read at same chapter VII, at page 281: "must we do
>frighten when even century XIX scolars, having only a few
>fragments of gnostic manuscripts, was able to detect forgeries i
>ALMOST ALL PAGES" ,of his slanderes as Irenaeus)
>Surely HPB makes a unfair commentary about Irenaeus'works, as
>you have seen in my last e-mail, when I reproduce text from
>Britannica Enc.

JHE
I found your quote on page 324-25 of the original edition (about
43 pages later), but it was not in a footnote as you originally
indicated.  But be that as it may, it seems that my understanding
of the meaning of this quote is different from yours.  As I
understand this quote, taking in consideration the surrounding
context, HPB was not criticizing Irenaeus specifically, but those
who wrote the scriptures and created the Christian traditions
generally.  HPB is arguing that the 19th century scholars where
able to detect "fraud" in the Christian writings when they
compared them to what they had of Gnostic mss.  Allow me to
transcribe the quote in context from the original English.  The
section you quoted comes in the second sentence of the last
paragraph:

             As a last word, the *Christian* Gnostics sprang into
      existence toward the beginning of the second century, and
      just at the time when the Essenes most mysteriously faded
      away, which indicated that they were the identical Essenes,
      and moreover pure *Christists*, viz.: they believed and were
      those who best understood what one of their own brethern had
      preached.  In insisting that the letter Iota, mentioned by
      Jesus in *Matthew* (v. 18), indicated a secret doctrine in
      relation to the ten aeons, it is sufficient to demonstrate
      to a kabalist that Jesus belonged to the Freemasonry of
      those days; for I, which is Iota in Greek, has other names
      in other languages; and is, as it was among the Gnostics of
      those days, a pass-word, meaning the SCEPTRE of the FATHER,
      in Eastern brotherhoods which exist to this very day.
             But in the early centuries these facts, if known, were
      purposely ignored, and not only withheld from public notice
      as much as possible, but vehemently denied whenever the
      question was forced upon discussion.  The denunciations of
      the Fathers were rendered bitter in proportion to the truth
      of the claim which they endeavored to refute.
             "It Comes to this," writes Irenaeus, complaining of the
      Gnostics, "they neither consent to Scripture nor tradition."
      ("Adv. Her., iii., 2, 2).  And why should we wonder at that,
      when even the commentators of the nineteenth century, with
      nothing but fragments of the Gnostic manuscripts to compare
      with the voluminous writing of their calumniators, have
      been enabled to detect fraud on nearly page?  How much more
      must the polished and learned Gnostics, with all their
      advantages of personal observation and knowledge of fact,
      have realized the stupendous scheme of fraud that was being
      consummated before their very eyes!  Why should they accuse
      Celsus of maintaining that their religion was all based on
      the speculations of Plato, with the difference that his
      doctrines were far more pure and rational than theirs, when
      we find Springel, seventeen centuries later writing the
      following?--"Not only they (the Christians) think to
      discover the dogmas of Plato in the books of Moses, but,
      moreover, they fancied that, by introducing Platonism, into
      Christianity, they would *elevate the dignity of this
      religion and make it more popular among the nations."

In the following paragraph she introduces her proofs for the
above assertions.  From Platonism and the current legends she
argues that the Christians borrowed the concept of the trinity. From 
the legend of Periktione, Plato's mother, came the model for
the "miraculous conception."  The annunciation, she argues, was
borrowed from the message of Apollo to Ariston, Periktions's
husband.

Therefore, my reading of your quote is *not* that HPB is accusing
Irenaeus of intentionally misrepresenting the Gnostic teachings,
but pointing out why she believes that Irenaeus' criticism of the
Gnostics for not abiding by "scripture nor tradition" was unfair.
She argues and tries to prove that the Gnostics were completely
justified in their reasons for not doing so.  HPB's above
argument forms a part of her broader argument that Christian
Gnosticism represented a purer form of Christianity than the
Christianity of today's Roman Church.

A
>Even HPB, seems to give credit to Irenaeus!
>BOOKIII, CpIII (start 116,final 145) page 140 HPB refers to
>Irenaeus' description of gnostic Basilides' system, and his
>notion of  (Adv. Haer. I,XXIV,4) and HPB says "this is not
>surely neither sacrilege against religious idea itself, nor to
>all unbiased thinker". So Iraeneus seems to describe correctly
>Basilides'system.

JHE
Yes, this seems to be further evidence that HPB is not attacking
Irenaeus for intentional inaccurately in describing Gnostic
doctrines.


BUT..
>BOOKIII, CpIV page 160 "Irenaeus seems so irreducibly entangled
>in his useless efforts to explain, at least in his external
>aspects, the truly doctrines of many gnostics sects and to
>present then, at same time, as 'heresies',abominations; that,
>deliberately, or by pure ignorance, he confuse it in such way,
>that only a few methaphics would be able to disentangle, without
>help of Qabala or Codex". HPB continues giving two examples of
>misconceptions made by Irenaeus. The confusion between
>sethianites and ophites; and about doctrines of Cerinthus. At
>page 167 again HPB says that Irenaeus gives a erroneous
>conception about ophites.

HPB
Here, I think is developing another aspect of her argument.  Not
that Irenaeus is misrepresenting the doctrines of the Gnostics,
but that he does not properly understand some of the deeper
teachings.  Behind this argument, HPB is contending that an
understanding of the Nabatheans and of Jewish mysticism is
required to understand some Gnostic teachings.  But very little
is known about the Sethianites and Ophites today, and the Nag
Hammadi finding threw no further light upon those groups.

A
>Jerry, sorry about my english translations, probably I commit
>some erros, so I prefer that you check this passages in your
>text. I also agree with you when you say about early church:
>"Their task was to discredit and destroy the gnostic movement
>through debate, and later by political force".  I only want to
>make clear that we must look with respect about Irenaeus' work.

JHE
I think HPB had more respect for Irenaeus' representation of
Gnosticism then she did for many of the other ante-nicean
fathers.  She seems to feel that his summaries of Gnostic
Doctrine were honest--that is, his intention was to fairly
represent those doctrines, and that he was on the whole
successful in doing so.  On the other hand, she finds fault with
his understanding of some of the more obscure doctrines, which we
know little of even today.


JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Mon Jun 17 01:02:36 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:02:36 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606170102.SAA01826@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

Martin wrote:.

> I would like to see people who are
> 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
>	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
>	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.
>

I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in support
of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.

Daniel

From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 17 02:40:32 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:40:32 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960616224032_415532933@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Alex,
I have known a few ex-nazis in my life who were genuinely repentant of their
youthful stupidity.  After all, how might we have turned out in that
environment?  Probably dead, I know, I know.

I agree with you about the commies.  The only good one is still a dead one.

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 17 02:45:18 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:45:18 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960616224517_415535619@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: AT

Doss,
I got it but I've been too busy to look at it.
I just finished my convention and my young Chaos Magicians all had a
wonderful time.

Chuck
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 17 01:39:12 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:39:12 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Name?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960616184640.006c4fcc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960616184640.006c4fcc@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>
>Yelena Blavatskaya's activities

Pretty please, Alexis  could you standardise
your spelling of her name ... ?

TIA

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 Jun 17 03:18:32 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:18:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)
In-Reply-To: <199606170102.SAA01826@web.azstarnet.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Blavatsky Foundation wrote:
> I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in support
> of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.

Daniel ...
	Tried to do exactly that on several occaisions - beginning 8
years ago with a 10,000 word article called "TS 2000" in the AT, and most
recently with a long (for the NET) post ... on this list ... on the First
Object.
	On every occaision these attempts, save for a few stray comments,
have been virtually universally ignored. It takes a serious expenditure
of energy to go beyond critique and actually attempt to formulate and
articulate the "alternatives". It is not only myself, but a number of
other Theosophists I've met over the years, and spoken with privately and
at great length, that have had similar experiences.
	In my own perception, Theosophy has settled into comfortable,
carved channels, and on the whole has very little interest in the *genuine*
exploration of any alternatives - even if those alternatives are grounded
in the foundational Objects of the original society, and readings of the
intentions of the Adepts that are at least as valid as those currently
popular among the leaderships.
	There *are* organizations ... and many of them ... hard at work
in the world today - organizations that are actively working (whether
they state it explicitly or not) towards the accomplishment of the
intentions in those objects. And many of them welcome the creative energy
of people who are trying to formulate new ways of looking at the human
kingdom and the relations within it. It is to these that most who try to
frame alternative views of Theosophy go - when it becomes clear that
their efforts simply amount to wasted energy within the theosophical
current.
	I fear my own (completely personal) sense is that having
*accepted as good and correct* the injunction at the core of Theosophy -
that the *service to humanity* is both the source and end of "personal"
spiritual activity and growth - that it constitutes both the philosophy
and day to day existance of the Adepts - yes, having *accepted*
Theosophy, that theosophical circles are unfortunately not the place to
actually *live* the philosophy ...
	The current people that have "status" in the movement, those
considered "wise", are for the most part those that (IMO) are simply
*selfishly* pursuing their own studies, their personal growth, seeking
their own development, and then wanting to "teach" what they know to
"neophytes" - as though that is *service*. Theosophy has become a place
to serve oneself - not a place to serve humanity.
	Perhaps there are very few "alternatives" really formulated and
supported is because it takes a great deal of a very particular kind of
energy to do such a thing - but if one intends to commit that sort of
energy, it needs to be done with a serious cost/benefit analysis ...
i.e., the question must be asked, *where* will the expenditure of that
energy achieve the greatest effects? For myself, most of the time I
choose to put what little abilities I have into organizations other than
Theosophy - because I know of many that are actually *accomplishing* the
Objects for which Theosophy was begun far more effectively than modern
Theosophy is.
	
							Regards, -JRC

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 07:24:40 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:24:40 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617072440.006d8860@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma

At 09:26 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>hi -
>
>I have a question:
>
>what should TSA or Adyar do to relieve/remove their karmic bounds
>and past problems?  seriously,  can they?  if not,  then what
>is their future?
>
>karmic problems include:
>
>AB and CWL
>TSA/Adyar secrecy/conspiracy
>
>my question is trying to address what it really takes (i.e. actions
>in the physical plane) to put things straight for the future.
>
>peace -
>
>john e. mead

John:

I am so glad to see you asking this question. I think the answer is
contained in The motto of the Theosophical society. Be truthful!
Where AB and CWL are concerned let all the truth be released and let the
"chips fall where they may". As to TSA/Adyar perhaps the society should have
independent National Sections until all the bitterness fades or forever,
whichever comes first. We are certainly close to that state now. As to
secrecy/conspiracy?That can only be solved by doing what James Long did in
the Pasadena society. Disband the E.S. because it is the source and cause of
all of the "conspiracy theories", if it didn't exist, neither would the
theories. Lastly the various officers of the various groups must learn that
openness with one's membership always pays far more than secrecy. Haven't
all americans learned that from watching President Nixon's travails. That's
the only product of secrecy...trouble!
>
As to action? Well I truly believe that if enough people care about it, and
are willing to "stick their necks out for it", we'll get positive results. I
think human rights have come a very long way since 1950 when I became
involved in the work, I "stuck my neck out" often and in spite of a couple
of close calls my head's still firmly attached. America is a far freer place
than it was in 1950!

alexis dolgorukii
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>Theos-L etc. list-owner
>Member of Theosophical Society in America
>Member of Theosophy International
>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>

From mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Mon Jun 17 16:21:52 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:21:52 -0500
From: "Michael W. Grenier" 
Message-Id: <31C58620.2F3F@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion?
References: <19960616172544234.AAA230@ras007.stic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

senzar@stic.net wrote:
>           "... A CHURCH ON MY GRAVE."
>                  by S. Treloar
>        (Copyright February 1996 S. L. Treloar)

..

>        It is to be noted that nowhere in these objects does
> it state that the purpose of the TS is the study and
> acceptance of the writings of HPB and *The Mahatma
> Letters* only, and the few other books that some claim
> as being the only ones fit and proper.

While I tend to agree with the positions taken in this paper,
it is interesting to note how many times that HBP was quoted
to make the point. It is very difficult for anyone in the
organization to present an idea without referencing back
to HPB or the Masters.

The problem seems to be that the writings:
> of HPB and *The Mahatma Letters* only,
> and the few other books
are the only ones recognized by Theosophosts in general.

For me, I'm too ignorant to *know* which truths from among
those proclaimed are actually true. Its easier to fall back
on HPB then to discover the additional truths on one's own.

If life is a classroom, it sure would be nice if we could
agree on the textbooks. But discovering the correct textbook
might we what the class is all about.

    -Mike Grenier







>         H. P. Blavatsky said, shortly before she died,
>  speaking of what she could `foresee would be happening
>  to her T.S.: "... they are going to build a church on my
>  grave." And this said with tears in her eyes. Some have
>  said that this was a prediction of the presence of the
>  Liberal Catholic Church on the grounds of Adyar, or the
>  prevalence of the Liberal Catholic Church amongst many
>  T.S. members, and almost nowhere else. This is not so.
>  H.P.B. was complaining that the TS she helped to found
>  would become a religion, which is now to so many
>  members, if not in actual legal fact, but treated as
>  such. The TS was never intended to be a religion. HPB
>  and the Masters quoted in *The Mahatma Letters* had many
>  condemning words to say against religion and
>  priestcraft, and with good reason, in particular the
>  dogmatism that is part and parcel of any religion. One
>  reads in the masthead page of *The Theosophical Digest*,
>  "Theosophy is not a religion. The term has been used as
>  an expression of the ageless wisdom of life that has
>  existed since time immemorial and which may be found in
>  the great spiritual traditions in the world." The TS was
>  not founded to be a religion nor a set of fixed beliefs
>  which is the prominent characteristic of a religion, yet
>  this is the desired condition of the TS today among many
>  members.
>
>         The purpose and pursuit of an organization should be
>  those as expressed in its Objects. The organization that
>  concerns me here and now is the TS. It has a set of
>  Objects. These have been changed a bit over the years
>  from the original set, but at present are quite
>  suitable, and all members should follow them, in a broad
>  pursuit of these Objects, and I would suggest that too
>  many do not, but act as if the Society's purpose was to
>  follow a rather restricted path of beliefs and
>  doctrines, which vary somewhat between TS groups, and
>  the word "dogma" also comes in, but never officially
>  acknowledged.
>
>         The Objects of the Society are:
>  a. To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of
>  Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste
>  or colour.
>  b. The study of comparative religion, philosophy and
>  science.
>  c. The investigation of the unexplained laws of Nature
>  and the powers latent in man.
>
>         The above recited vary slightly as some groups have
>  sought to alter for political correctness. The only one
>  I would alter would be the first to indicate the oneness
>  of all Life, and reword to include at least the Animal
>  Kingdom as well as the Human. However, such a wording
>  thus briefly hinted at, is not the purpose of this
>  essay.
>
>         It is to be noted that nowhere in these objects does
>  it state that the purpose of the TS is the study and
>  acceptance of the writings of HPB and *The Mahatma
>  Letters* only, and the few other books that some claim
>  as being the only ones fit and proper.
>
>         In a religion, there are a number of common
>  characteristics, especially in the exoteric form, and
>  especially in the 6th Ray religion, (in this group are
>  Christianity and Islam). There is a bad tendency for
>  humans, to focus on the physical plane, the material,
>  that they can see and fee and bite into. Thus in
>  religions, there is a desired prophet or two, and the
>  personality worship of the prophet or prophetess, and
>  saints, if any, and usually there are, and above all,
>  THE BOOK, something that sets down the what to believe,
>  and what is permissible to believe - the Authority.
>  Reading *The History of the Church* by the 3rd century
>  bishop Eusebius recently, I was struck by the similarity
>  of the formation of a religion of Theosophy by the Loud
>  Minority of its members, with the similar
>  characteristics in the early Christian Church. They had
>  the Book of Authority, the Bible. They were very narrow
>  minded against any unbelievers and of anyone else who
>  might try to redefine or present another viewpoint, one
>  instance being that of Manes or Manichaeus and his
>  followers, the Manicheans. The Christians worshipped at
>  cemeteries, doing so at the graves of saints and
>  martyrs. They were and still are to this day somewhat
>  obsessed with what is actually the worship of relics of
>  saints. This done to the extent that the RC Church has
>  always had a problem of weaning many of its members away
>  from the worship of saints and relics to the worship of
>  at least a little bit of God and Jesus and/or the
>  Christ.
>
>         This was noted in a book read a couple of years ago
>  on the (current) process of how the Church makes saints.
>  Noted too, in a book about the finding of the bones of
>  St. Peter under the main altar of St. Peter's Cathedral
>  in the Vatican, is the mention of the early Christians'
>  habit of worshipping at the graves of saints, building a
>  church thereon, if possible, therefore leading the
>  archaeologists working in the crypt under the altar in
>  St. Peter's to the conclusion that at least one set of
>  the several skeletons found there was the remains of St.
>  Peter. Eusebius mentions that in the two centuries of
>  the history of the Church that he was covering, (he died
>  339 AD) the Roman Emperors variously allowed
>  Christianity or proscribed it, depending on the frequent
>  change of Emperor. When Christianity was forbidden,
>  along would come an edict banning Christians meeting in
>  cemeteries. Why? Because that is where one could find
>  Christians worshipping at saints' and martyrs' graves,
>  and other religions had no such morbid habit. There is a
>  great tendency for theosophists to do an equivalent form
>  of over attention to what can be seen, the physical,
>  rather than to the Spirit. One finds personality
>  worship, usually HPB but not exclusively so. The
>  Canadian TS favours HPB and the Founders and this may
>  also be found, to some extent, both here and abroad.
>  Other groups include those whom I call the Latter Day
>  Saints - Besant, Leadbeater and perhaps some presidents
>  of the TS in Adyar, providing that they are dead now.
>  Great attention is given to the history of the TS
>  saints, founders and prophets. This is personality
>  worship, a great human trait. It will be acknowledged if
>  deemed glorious, but if it is deemed that someone is
>  suggesting that this worshipping is pejorative, then it
>  will be denied that it is ever done. The denial lie.
>
>         Where in the writings of HPB which we are supposed to
>  follow if we are "true theosophists", does she say that
>  her personality shall be worshipped or otherwise
>  glorified, and only her writings and those of certain
>  approved (not by her, but by a later Loud Minority!)
>  other writers are to be studied to the exclusion of all
>  other works, excepting favorable commentaries on her
>  writings? Our ultra conservatives deem that this is the
>  only way to go, and all others must go this way too, the
>  6th Ray personality trait.
>
>         The illusion is that they are purists: the reality is
>  that they are narrow minded.
>
>         The question of where did HPB say that her writings
>  only and her personality to be given extreme attention,
>  was put to some members earlier in 1995, (and then
>  spread around many more, not at my expense, which was my
>  idea and intent for an economical dissemination) and not
>  yet has there been an answer given, because there is
>  none. HPB was a very advanced Soul, and as such would
>  have no patience with the waste of time of personality
>  worship. She was also very broad minded and knew and
>  could quote of the writings of very, very many, thus
>  implying, if nothing else, the setting of an example for
>  following theosophists. Being beyond the need for
>  personal accolades and ego pumping. HPB would never have
>  approved of being the object of personality worship, or
>  a Blavatsky personality cult, which, unfortunately,
>  exists, nor would she approve of the notion, which
>  exists in some quarters, that her writings were to be
>  for exclusive use and belief. That being so, why do
>  those who would follow her as an ideal not follow her
>  teachings in all things? The answer is obvious: human
>  nature which tends to exalt that which can be seen and
>  touched, the Prophet or Saint, and the chosen bible, the
>  form and not the spirit. Thus are religions formed of
>  the exoteric type, and theosophy as presently practiced
>  by so many is exoteric, of the form and not the spirit.
>  In view of HPB's attitudes on these subjects discussed
>  in this paragraph, why do not her avid followers not pay
>  attention to her intention?
>
>         HPB wrote: "Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither
>  possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion,
>  within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical
>  Society a living and healthy body, its many ugly
>  features notwithstanding. Were it not also for the
>  existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds
>  of the students of Theosophy, such healthy divergences
>  would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate
>  into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed
>  would take the place of the living and breathing spirit
>  of Truth and an ever growing knowledge." [It is ironic,
>  in a matter that will be discussed here later, that this
>  quote is from a letter that HPB wrote to the American
>  Section of the TS.] It is the contention of this essay
>  that "... a narrow and stereotyped creed" already
>  exists, contrary to HPB's wishes, and created and
>  maintained by those who hold her pronouncements as of
>  supreme importance. But it was ever thus, only what
>  suits one's predilections are used, the rest
>  conveniently ignored.
>
>         To be more specific: a characteristic of the 6th Ray
>  person, (which 6th Ray represents Devotion to an Ideal)
>  and of some others too, on other Rays, is that they
>  chose only that which they want from their "Truth
>  Sources" based on personal preferences, while claiming
>  to follow their Ideal Source, and ignore what is said by
>  the honoured Source where it does not fit their
>  preferences. Authority through the filter of their
>  personality: not everything goes through. Another 6th
>  Ray characteristic is that all others must believe as
>  the 6th Ray person does: no exceptions. If you do not so
>  believe, you are going straight to Hell.
>
>         In the TS, as with other organizations one finds
>  those individuals who know it all, *self appointed*
>  custodians of Truth, I call these the Loud Minority, and
>  these get a following of sheep, who can't or won't study
>  enough for themselves, so believe what the LM's say, and
>  thus often from the Loud Minority we often actually get
>  a majority. The L.M.'s decide what is Truth, and
>  therefore what can be believed and taught, and thereby
>  what books are correct. It was ever thus. Christianity
>  has the Bible as the only book. The Moslems have their
>  Koran. A Moslem general who once said that the Koran was
>  the only book that needs to be read, then proceeded to
>  burn down the library at Alexandria. (Not its first
>  burning - one sees a bad habit forming)
>
>         HPB took the trouble to quote the Buddha: "The only
>  Truth in this world is that there is no Truth in it."
>  The Buddha meant the physical world. While rummaging
>  through *The Secret Doctrine* a few years ago for a
>  suitable quotation to begin an Annual Members' Meeting,
>  I read a few other things here and there that caught my
>  eye. HPB said in Vol. 2, if my eidetic memory serves,
>  that while there is no truth in the lower planes, (only
>  maya and illusion) there was still a degree of relative
>  truth, but no real truth as our Deity (or God) would
>  know it. The truth of anything can only begin to be
>  found when one can lift one's consciousness to the level
>  of the Nirvanic Plane, (3rd from the top) as this is the
>  lowest direct manifestation of the Solar Logos, or Deity
>  of our system, or God, choose your favorite name. I
>  recall once mentioning this in an article, to which
>  someone took offense, taking this statement apart
>  (showing that she had not read too much if anything of
>  her *Secret Doctrine* bible) and asked "What is my
>  authority for such a statement?" (for quotation). There
>  is a problem with too many especially the "academics",
>  they have no trust in their own powers of mind or
>  reasoning, perhaps have none, and must base all that
>  they allow themselves to believe on some other person,
>  an "authority" rather than allowing an idea of their own
>  leak in, and they will not allow another person to have
>  an original idea or conclusion. It is to be noted well,
>  that those who require authorities, be it HPB or
>  whoever, chose from any authority only that which suits
>  their own predilections and prejudices, and also only
>  that which is the realm of their ken or state of
>  education (or lack). Requiring "authorities" is a great
>  fault among theosophists, - others too, - but I am
>  concerned here chiefly with the health or lack, of the
>  TS.
>
>         "Diversity of opinion" and "... a large amount of
>  uncertainty" are those things which can lead the
>  brighter to inquire further and broadly, and thereby
>  have a chance of eventually finding Truth. On this
>  physical plane truth will always be relative, but more
>  of even that is still desirable. This is impossible if a
>  broad scope of study is not allowed, or frowned upon.
>  Krishnamurti said "Truth is a Pathless Land." Meaning
>  that each one of us must find the way to Truth by our
>  own wanderings, there is no set roadway. It is the
>  intention of the Deity of our system that each of us
>  shall find our way back to Him, the Source, by our own
>  differing way. This is His Plan, and by the diversity He
>  becomes perfected in a most broad way. Were it
>  otherwise, there would be no need for Him to have
>  created so many Monads. Why have a thousand or million
>  people (read Souls or Monads) treading identical paths,
>  having identical experiences, when to accomplish this,
>  only one Monad would be needed, not a million.
>
>         A religion accepts only orthodox control of what can
>  be taught, and believed. This has entered the TS as its
>  members have shifted the TS into a religion. The Loud
>  Minority have decided what is correct and what is not.
>  Those who do not accept this are frowned upon, made
>  uncomfortable so that they will leave, shown the door,
>  or so discouraged as not to join in the first place, as
>  happened with two of my relatives - who still studied of
>  things occult. The decision as to what is acceptable is
>  arbitrary, a position seized upon by the pushy, the
>  L.M.'s, by some who have studied a fair amount and in so
>  doing assume they know more, and know best, impressing a
>  few sheep in the process. If HPB is the ideal, her
>  intentions if followed by these purists are purely co-
>  incidental. I know of an incident in the past year where
>  a member was literally escorted to the door. I learned
>  from another that this ousted person was much more broad
>  minded that was generally favoured in that lodge. In a
>  religion, of the 6th Ray at any rate, and in semi
>  religions (those in the making) much energy is spent in
>  seeing that all are believers of the official line, Like
>  political dictatorships, which sooner or later (usually
>  sooner) spend a neurotic amount of energy on political
>  pureness of the masses and seeking out the dissenters
>  and unbelievers, religions too get to a stage where too
>  much energy is spent in seeing that the members are not
>  heretics of the official line. This to the extent of
>  mass murder and torture as in the Inquisition. This
>  deviated 180 degrees from what the Founder of
>  Christianity taught, but this never bothered the
>  participants, they choose only from their sources and
>  authorities that which suits their predilections. The
>  R.C. Church is and has been so obviously *not* based on
>  the Bible, as one might expect it to be, that even the
>  clergy enlightened enough to see this and admit it,
>  excuse the Church by saying that the Church is based on
>  tradition. The TS has this quality too of not being
>  properly based on the Founders' intentions, and has been
>  for some time. No Inquisitions (yet) for which thanks be
>  given,just out-easing. The TS'ers who claim HPB is the
>  one and only actually do not follow her line, as I have
>  complained about herein. The only reason we do not hear
>  her turning over in her grave is because she was
>  cremated and her ashes scattered.
>
>         Control of beliefs in religion or theosophy,
>  orthodoxy of beliefs brought into official control, are
>  all contrary to HPB's statement the "orthodoxy in
>  theosophy is impossible and undesirable.", thus it is
>  obvious that the interpretation of what is meant by
>  "theosophy" is *not* by HPB's instructions or teachings
>  but by the arbitrary whims and dictates of others, who
>  set themselves up as the "true" interpreters. Are these
>  others to be regarded as more qualified than HPB? There
>  are recent by-law changes in another country that will
>  enable the dictating of what can be taught, which
>  implies that someone must set themselves up as
>  interpreters of the "truth". I challenge the HPB-only's
>  to come up with glorious excuses and explanations as to
>  why they deviate so willingly from the example and
>  teachings of HPB whom they adore and falsely claim to
>  follow, taking only what suits their predilections from
>  her writings.
>
>         HPB was a grand lady with great revelations for our
>  development. What a pit so few want to follow her broad-
>  minded example. One finds in her greatest advocates her
>  greatest distorters.
>
>         While I mostly deal with the matters as found
>  prominent in the Canadian end of the TS, as seeing what
>  has been closest to me for over 50 years better than
>  what is distant. I have to report on a matter that has
>  just recently come up in a country very close
>  geographically to Canada. In that country they recently
>  adopted some by-law changes. This happens all the time,
>  as you might say, so what. Among several changes are two
>  that are quite nasty and dangerous, and the sign that
>  religionism has taken over. One by-law says that the
>  headquarters can now dictate to lodges, (and members by
>  implication one may assume) what can be taught. This
>  implies also dictating what can be believed, in order
>  that the "taught" person can safely assume it to be a
>  "theosophical" belief. This has the approval of Adyar,
>  and is touted to be right and proper and in consonance
>  with the Rules of the International (Adyar) TS. If it is
>  now, what was it before so that a change was deemed
>  necessary, or was it not strict enough in the previous
>  wording? It has been said for a long time now, probably
>  predating my existence on the physical plane, that the
>  Adyar Rules in parts are very undemocratic, placing
>  dictatorial powers in the hands of whoever may be
>  president. This and the obedience requirement for the ES
>  members to the Outer Head - and the ES is dominant in
>  the Adyarian TS world-wide - places too much power in
>  one person. Thus the deciding of what is "kosher" to be
>  taught has the potential for abuse, and I would suggest,
>  has been abused already, which I will later deal with.
>
>         The other objectionable part to these by-law changes
>  is that they state that all assets of the lodges belong
>  to Headquarters. This can mean the national headquarters
>  and by implication, and in past performances, Adyar.
>  This is to apply even if the regional lodge is a
>  corporation. The by-law has passed. It has been
>  suggested by critics of the by-law change in that
>  country that the vote was light, and perhaps not all who
>  participated in the vote fully understood the
>  implications. Be that as it may, several lodges are very
>  much opposed to these two changes, the other changes in
>  the by-law amendment are rather innocuous. If this is
>  what the members of that Section want, I agree that each
>  has the right to go to Hell in their own way, and if
>  their way is wrong, Karma will adjust, rewarding or
>  biting. I do not agree with the two parts that some find
>  objectionable, but cannot directly interfere at this
>  distance, and won't, other than to express an opinion. I
>  strongly object to the idea of asset seizure. This is
>  robbery, theft, unless done when a lodge collapses and
>  there are no more members, then reversion of the assets
>  to the headquarters is justified. If the lodge is still
>  alive, and its direction does not suit headquarters, or
>  the lodge wants to separate, they should be able to and
>  take their assets with them on separation, which assets,
>  in my opinion belong to them.
>
>         The dictating of what can be taught and claiming to
>  own all assets of branches is a thing well noted in
>  religions, so this is another step in TS religionism, (a
>  favorite word of the late Alvin B Kuhn). HPB, Judge and
>  Besant all said that there was autonomy of lodges and
>  Sections, and that there was no "parent" society. The
>  current management in Adyar may say that there is
>  autonomy, but their actions in the past few years show
>  that they believe otherwise. I am a strong believer that
>  there is and should be autonomy of lodges and Sections.
>  When a lodge wants to leave, they should go intact. I
>  know of court decisions where the headquarters can grab
>  the assets, and of court decisions where the courts
>  decided otherwise. When lodges left in the Canadian TS,
>  I did not even bother to inform the Board of Directors
>  of this, (various court decisions) as a decision either
>  way would be up to the judge that one got and the
>  astuteness of the lawyers, and since the outcome would
>  almost as a flip of the coin, only the lawyers with
>  their large fees could win. Ask Adyar how much they
>  spent to lose the Denmark affair. Besides, I believe in
>  the autonomy of lodges etc.
>
>         Either there is autonomy or there is not. There is no
>  grey area. Obviously Adyar and its obedient affiliates
>  believe that there is not autonomy. This and the control
>  of what can be taught, which can be called the
>  episcopalian system, is what this nearby country's TS
>  has now. That its president, whose writings I have
>  publicly expressed as a great breath of fresh air, has
>  adopted - gone along with - this narrow concept, can
>  best be explained by the fact that he once was in
>  training to be a Roman Catholic priest. Thus such
>  control would not be an unfamiliar thing to him. To
>  objections to the changes in the bylaws, officialdom has
>  claimed that such strictures and control of teachings
>  and assets were already in place, and these changes but
>  emphasized them. All the defenses for the changes I can
>  argue against, but that is not my purpose here, only to
>  point out that it is a crystallizing event and a further
>  consolidation of theosophy as a religion.
>
>         One of the leaders of a lodge objecting to these
>  changes in by-laws has said that part of the reason is
>  fear of some lodges teaching or allowing to be taught,
>  classes on Bailey books. His lodge is very broad minded
>  and allows anything along occult lines to be taught. He
>  pointed out that in the past few years that the
>  interference by Adyar into the affairs of lodges and
>  sections, in Jugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Denmark
>  and Canada's excommunication, were based on the fact
>  that Alice Bailey's books were being used in some
>  classes. In this he was almost completely correct.
>  Canada and possibly Ireland's incidents were not for
>  this reason. He said that obviously Adyar and certain
>  others who toed the party line were in fear of Bailey,
>  and felt threatened. I agree completely with this as a
>  valid psychological assessment.
>
>  (To be concluded in July-August 1996 issue).
>
>  ________________________________________
>  The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. 77, No. 2., May-June
>  1996, pp. 26-34
>  Mail address of Canadian Theosophist:
>  R.R. No. 3, Burk's Falls
>  Ontario P0A 1C0
>  Canada
From jem@vnet.net Tue Jun 18 02:52:12 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:52:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John E. Mead" 
Message-Id: <199606180252.WAA21711@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

question ---

you are Radha....  what are you going to do today?

peace  --

john e. mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------
From jem@vnet.net Tue Jun 18 03:12:22 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:12:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John E. Mead" 
Message-Id: <199606180312.XAA22255@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma

>
>John,
>One method would be to open a vortex and throw all the TSA karma into it.

i totally agree.  dump it in the vacuum of thought.  maybe we can then be ride of it.  after all,...  how many hundreds of years are we to still grump about the AB and CWL stuff??  who even cares??

>course you never quite know what comes out of one of those things, but it
>would at least be interesting.
>If all goes well a group of us will be doing a vortex ritual at the
>convention in July.  That should make things entertaining at the very least.
> The one we did at the Nutmeg Gathering this last Friday attracted a bat, a
>lunar moth, (two things rarely if ever seen in the Chicago suburbs) every
>mosquito in Illinois, a police car with one very befuddled officer, and
>mysteriously appearing objects in participants hotel rooms.
>Objects also mysteriously disappeared, my furnace went berserk at home and
>one of our people became bothered by an obsessing activated shell that had to
>be exorcised.  We now have a bottle of distilled pure evil from the exorcism,
>so if you know of anyone who could use some...
>The TSA needs more excitement.
>

actually I was baiting you :-)

I have seen many disputes.  but the serious question still remains as to what to do with them all.

forming a brotherhood of mankind??    who needs to do WHAT to resolve the various differences??  what do we do to make peace ??
does adyar need to state that CWL and AB are frauds,  but many of their writings are valid??  I would probably read the statement and just throw it away as i do most junk-mail.

I ask only questions.  who can answer.  what is the work which needs to be done??  can you make a list of items which adyar/TSA can perform to appease the critics?  where does the organization become more important than the members?

most members do not care. the TSA has lost itself within its own disputes.

if we can not realize a brotherhood between ourselves,  how can we proceed to achieve it in the real world?  i.e.  what can we do to resolve our differences in this very local medium?


peace -

john e. mead


-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------
From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 18 03:43:18 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:43:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960617224558.274fe204@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

At 10:55 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>question ---
>
>you are Radha....  what are you going to do today?
>
>peace  --
>
>john e. mead
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>Theos-L etc. list-owner
>Member of Theosophical Society in America
>Member of Theosophy International
>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>

Get all the National Presidents/Secretaries for an urgent meeting. Suggest
that each of them to visit each lodge and study center and also get on
internet theos-xxxx lists and listen to the members and find out the
underlying problems. After say 6 months again get another meeting setup to
review the findings. Invite all members who are interested and able to
attend both the meetings. Then everyone can feel that everything is done in
the open.

I don't know if this will work. The National Presidents and Section
Secretaries may rebel because everyone operates in the secrecy mode. I just
saw a sample attitude when I tried to get the voting tally info from John
Algeo even when the law says members can access all books and records of TSA
for any purpose.

******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 17 04:28:42 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:28:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960616233118.23af113c@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: AT

Thanks. ...doss


At 10:48 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>I got it but I've been too busy to look at it.
>I just finished my convention and my young Chaos Magicians all had a
>wonderful time.
>
>Chuck
>
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 17 02:33:12 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:33:12 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606170435.AA12325@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 11:20 PM 6/16/96 -0400, JRC wrote:

> For myself, most of the time I
>choose to put what little abilities I have into organizations other than
>Theosophy - because I know of many that are actually *accomplishing* the
>Objects for which Theosophy was begun far more effectively than modern
>Theosophy is.

JRC, I agree with your conclusion. Theosophists seem to be mainly focused on
reading, understanding, interpreting and discussing the theosophical
literature. I, too, have found a lot more dynamic work for the objectives
taking place in other organizations.

Bjorn


roxendal@alpinet.net

From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 17 04:52:40 1996
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:52:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960616235515.23b76890@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 11:20 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Blavatsky Foundation wrote:
>> I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in
support
>> of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>Daniel ...
>	Tried to do exactly that on several occaisions - beginning 8
>years ago with a 10,000 word article called "TS 2000" in the AT, and most
>recently with a long (for the NET) post ... on this list ... on the First
>Object.
>	On every occaision these attempts, save for a few stray comments,
>have been virtually universally ignored. It takes a serious expenditure
>of energy to go beyond critique and actually attempt to formulate and
>articulate the "alternatives". It is not only myself, but a number of
>other Theosophists I've met over the years, and spoken with privately and
>at great length, that have had similar experiences.
>	In my own perception, Theosophy has settled into comfortable,
>carved channels, and on the whole has very little interest in the *genuine*
>exploration of any alternatives - even if those alternatives are grounded
>in the foundational Objects of the original society, and readings of the
>intentions of the Adepts that are at least as valid as those currently
>popular among the leaderships.
>	There *are* organizations ... and many of them ... hard at work
>in the world today - organizations that are actively working (whether
>they state it explicitly or not) towards the accomplishment of the
>intentions in those objects. And many of them welcome the creative energy
>of people who are trying to formulate new ways of looking at the human
>kingdom and the relations within it. It is to these that most who try to
>frame alternative views of Theosophy go - when it becomes clear that
>their efforts simply amount to wasted energy within the theosophical
>current.
>	I fear my own (completely personal) sense is that having
>*accepted as good and correct* the injunction at the core of Theosophy -
>that the *service to humanity* is both the source and end of "personal"
>spiritual activity and growth - that it constitutes both the philosophy
>and day to day existance of the Adepts - yes, having *accepted*
>Theosophy, that theosophical circles are unfortunately not the place to
>actually *live* the philosophy ...
>	The current people that have "status" in the movement, those
>considered "wise", are for the most part those that (IMO) are simply
>*selfishly* pursuing their own studies, their personal growth, seeking
>their own development, and then wanting to "teach" what they know to
>"neophytes" - as though that is *service*. Theosophy has become a place
>to serve oneself - not a place to serve humanity.
>	Perhaps there are very few "alternatives" really formulated and
>supported is because it takes a great deal of a very particular kind of
>energy to do such a thing - but if one intends to commit that sort of
>energy, it needs to be done with a serious cost/benefit analysis ...
>i.e., the question must be asked, *where* will the expenditure of that
>energy achieve the greatest effects? For myself, most of the time I
>choose to put what little abilities I have into organizations other than
>Theosophy - because I know of many that are actually *accomplishing* the
>Objects for which Theosophy was begun far more effectively than modern
>Theosophy is.
>	
>							Regards, -JRC


John:

Let me add my 1 cent worth (?).


1. There is a growing trend of un-attached membership in TS. There is a
positive chemistry that takes place when members interact. I am yet to see
any serious effort being made to look at the reasons for this phenomenon and
see if it can be turned around.

2. It is the norm rathern than exception that the lodge membership is
declining in most places. A serious effort has not been done by any of the
leaders to visit each one of them and find out what the problems are and
then come out with a strategy to strengthen the lodges. I make this under
the assumption that the TS is indeed interested in strengthening and
increasing the membership of the lodges in the long run. If this is not
their long term objective, then they should say so openly and very clearly.

3. I have not seen any long term strategy of the TS at International or
National Level. This does not mean that there is none. If there is one in
place, it has not been clearly communicated and feedback obtained from
members and lodges.

4. There is the question of secrecy. Unnecessary secrecy has killed many
organizations in the past. This is not my statement. This was a *warning*
given to AB in the 1900 letter by KH. I am sure that He knows what he was
talking about and may have forseen it coming down the pike. I have seen a
very classic example of the demonstration of this in such a trivial thing
like releasing the vote count of TSA elections. I will go into it later in a
separate posting.

5. Nothing that has been going on in TSA during the last eight months, has
IMHO, strengthend the trust in the administration. Short term gains have
been the focus. The level of confidence and trust need and can be enhanced
only with openness and candor at all levels of administration.

6. Without focus on the *fundamental* reason for the starting of the TS, TS
as we know it is doomed because if it is not helping the Humanity, then
Humanity has no use for TS. Look at the conditions of the world today. The
increasing crime rate in this country, the killings that go on in the
regional wars in the world etc.  I am not saying that we can stop all this.
But each Theosophist can do his or her little to improve the situation.

        MK Ramadoss
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 07:02:07 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:02:07 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617070207.006c1d8c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 05:18 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis>Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.
>
>Alexis: it's quite possible. However, I don't equate criticism on
>        ideas and perceptions with flaming someone.
>	Besides all of this I would like to see people who are
> 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
>	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
>	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.
>
>Martin
>
>
>Martin:

You don't seem to be listening to a word I'm saying. That is a surprise to
me, because you say you're a psychologist, and psychologists are supposed to
be professional "listeners". At least that was the very first thin I was
taught when I studied the subject a Columbia University. The problem is that
we don't possess anywhere near the same definition of "criticism". I will
gladly accept "strong disagreement", but "criticism" is the wrong word to
use. It really doesn't matter if you "equate criticism on (it should be OF)
ideas and perceptions with flaming someone" or not. If the person who is the
object of that criticism does, and you refuse to see why and how they do so,
what have you accomplished? Let's have an understanding shall we? I define
criticism in a negative or pejorative sense, and that's the definition, you,
for whom English isn't a primary language,will have to accept.

Now, I am far more than totally "dissatisfied" with "Core Theosophy" in
every way. In fact I totally reject it as valid. This I believe you already
know.

You have posted your "7 Jewel" Message on alt. theosophy. Now, as of
yesterday, I can post messages on alt-theosophy, while it is cumbersome, and
I must needs go "round Robin Hood's Barn" to reach the group. I have saved
your message and I am preparing a response to it. I, for one, think that
alt. theosophy was primarily designed as a venue for discussions of this
kind. It's a shame that the group is so very difficult to reach for the
nonce, but in time it will gain audience. In the interim I think it an ideal
place for small "t" theosophists and Orthodox Theosophists who are
literalists when it comes to the so called "Core Doctrines" to engage in
some actual theosophical work and compare their perceptions of theosophy.
But, you need to know that these discussions cannot be perceptive if
everything something like me says is met with "HPB says" or "The Masters
said". People like me regard theosophy as a process, Literalist Theosophists
appear to regard Theosophy as a "Religion".

For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?

This is something which we all have to think about, if we are going to end
up with anything but wreckage where the Theosophical society was, we are
going to have to communicate peaceably, while still maintaining our
differences What we have to accept is this: You have every right to your
religious approach to Theosophy, and I have an equally strong right to my
agnostic approach to theosophy.

With hand of friendship out:

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 07:14:38 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:14:38 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617071438.006d2160@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 09:08 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Martin wrote:.
>
>> I would like to see people who are
>> 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
>>	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
>>	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.
>>
>
>I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in
support
>of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>Daiel:

Those of us who view theosophy as a process and not as a religion, and I am
clearly only one of many, do not talk against "Core Doctrines" so much, as
deny they exist. It is very hard to marshall rational arguments against an
opponent who responds with the equivalent of "God Says". I have yet to meet
a "theosophy as process" proponent who did not come to that position from
years and years of study of the SAME books and letters you literalists have
also studied for years and years. I, and those who agree with me, have
simply drawn totally different conclusions than you have. In point of fact,
it is quite possible that when things "settle down" sufficiently so that we
can have a rational and amicable discussion we will find that both sides use
the same quotations to prove opposite conclusions. What then?

I am hoping that alt.theosophy (when it becomes functional) will serve as a
"safety valve" for this type of discussion and leave this venue, Theos-list,
for old time theosophists of either camp to have calm and intellectual
discussion.


alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 07:38:24 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:38:24 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617073824.006b30b8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 10:44 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I have known a few ex-nazis in my life who were genuinely repentant of their
>youthful stupidity.  After all, how might we have turned out in that
>environment?  Probably dead, I know, I know.
>
>I agree with you about the commies.  The only good one is still a dead one.
>
>Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
>
>I have known some ex-Nazis who were ony repentant becuase it pays to be so.
As to genuine repentance....?????
Hitler was elected in a totally honest election with 98% of the vote. The
Germans only turned anti-Nazi when he began to lose. Oh there were Germans
who fought Hitler and almost all of them ended up unpleasantly dead.

As to Communists, well my feelings are well known. The Swede claims to have
left Communism when he experienced a "religious conversion", oh well, that's
no improvement!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 07:45:33 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:45:33 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617074533.006b31e4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Name?

At 11:13 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960616184640.006c4fcc@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>
>>Yelena Blavatskaya's activities
>
>Pretty please, Alexis  could you standardise
>your spelling of her name ... ?
>
>TIA
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan:

I've pretty well settled on that one. It IS the correct spelling. You know
that in Russian a woman's name is spelled differently than her husbands or
fathers. Nichephor Blavatsky was her husband, she was Yelena Petrovna
Blavatskaya. As that is the correct spelling that's the one I'll use from
now on. I suppose to be consistent I should sign myself Alexei
Alexandreivitch, but I am an American and so I'll stick with the anglicized
Alexis.

alexis 

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 07:49:22 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:49:22 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617074922.006bd728@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 11:20 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Blavatsky Foundation wrote:
>> I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in
support
>> of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>Daniel ...
>	Tried to do exactly that on several occaisions - beginning 8
>years ago with a 10,000 word article called "TS 2000" in the AT, and most
>recently with a long (for the NET) post ... on this list ... on the First
>Object.
>	On every occaision these attempts, save for a few stray comments,
>have been virtually universally ignored. It takes a serious expenditure
>of energy to go beyond critique and actually attempt to formulate and
>articulate the "alternatives". It is not only myself, but a number of
>other Theosophists I've met over the years, and spoken with privately and
>at great length, that have had similar experiences.
>	In my own perception, Theosophy has settled into comfortable,
>carved channels, and on the whole has very little interest in the *genuine*
>exploration of any alternatives - even if those alternatives are grounded
>in the foundational Objects of the original society, and readings of the
>intentions of the Adepts that are at least as valid as those currently
>popular among the leaderships.
>	There *are* organizations ... and many of them ... hard at work
>in the world today - organizations that are actively working (whether
>they state it explicitly or not) towards the accomplishment of the
>intentions in those objects. And many of them welcome the creative energy
>of people who are trying to formulate new ways of looking at the human
>kingdom and the relations within it. It is to these that most who try to
>frame alternative views of Theosophy go - when it becomes clear that
>their efforts simply amount to wasted energy within the theosophical
>current.
>	I fear my own (completely personal) sense is that having
>*accepted as good and correct* the injunction at the core of Theosophy -
>that the *service to humanity* is both the source and end of "personal"
>spiritual activity and growth - that it constitutes both the philosophy
>and day to day existance of the Adepts - yes, having *accepted*
>Theosophy, that theosophical circles are unfortunately not the place to
>actually *live* the philosophy ...
>	The current people that have "status" in the movement, those
>considered "wise", are for the most part those that (IMO) are simply
>*selfishly* pursuing their own studies, their personal growth, seeking
>their own development, and then wanting to "teach" what they know to
>"neophytes" - as though that is *service*. Theosophy has become a place
>to serve oneself - not a place to serve humanity.
>	Perhaps there are very few "alternatives" really formulated and
>supported is because it takes a great deal of a very particular kind of
>energy to do such a thing - but if one intends to commit that sort of
>energy, it needs to be done with a serious cost/benefit analysis ...
>i.e., the question must be asked, *where* will the expenditure of that
>energy achieve the greatest effects? For myself, most of the time I
>choose to put what little abilities I have into organizations other than
>Theosophy - because I know of many that are actually *accomplishing* the
>Objects for which Theosophy was begun far more effectively than modern
>Theosophy is.
>	
>							Regards, -JRC
>
>Three cheers for you John! That's a perfect statement of "how it is".
Pray tell, what are these other organizations who are actually "doing"
something. I'm getting discouraged and might like to do something other than
beat my head against a stone wall.

alexis

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 17 15:57:29 1996
Date: 17 Jun 96 11:57:29 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)
Message-Id: <960617155729_76400.1474_HHL87-2@CompuServe.COM>

>  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>Daniel ...

Well, I have made my own views very plain over the years,
both here and on Peacenet.  My feeling is that the core
teachings as given out, are exoteric and simplistic--
suitable perhaps for Joe Sixpack, but covering over
many deeper and more esoteric meanings.  I am not
sure, but I think Eldon agrees with me on this.  My premise,
basically, is that reincarnation and karma, for an example
of core teachings, are a whole lot more complicated than
what we find in the literature.  The problem is that the
literature appears to contain step-by-step processes
and descriptions, and would seem to have addressed
karma and reincarnation in depth.  My view is that this
is an illusion.  Karma is *not* rewards and punishments--
this is merely how we as human beings perceive it.
Karma is causality, the same causality that we find
in physics with the exception of its application on other
planes rather than just the physical.  And causality (order)
has "holes" in it, which I call the Chaos Factor.  Karma
also must be seen as both individual and collective,
and the collective part works on the mental level under
very complicated telepathic stategems that we only
barely recognize.  All of the other core teachings are
the same way.  They appear to be completely discussed
in the literature, but this is simply not so; they are all
much more complicated than they appear when put
into words.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI


From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Jun 17 15:57:26 1996
Date: 17 Jun 96 11:57:26 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Ruminations
Message-Id: <960617155726_76400.1474_HHL87-1@CompuServe.COM>

Alexis to Martin:
>For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
>the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
>that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
>any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
>amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?

	Personally, I don't believe in "universal justice" either.  Justice
is a feeling that we human beings have, a sense of fairness.  Animals
do not have this feeling at all.  Nor does anything except human beings.
Our sense of fairness, and our desire for justice, will cause us to create
a God, if one doesn't exist.  Because there is obviously no justice in this
world, we create two new worlds, call them Heaven and Hell, and hope
that everyone will have justice there, after death here.  Or, we create the
notion of karma, and believe that we are all punished or rewarded for
actions in our past lives.  Now I can see no difference at all between
these two.  They serve as excuses for the fact that there is no justice
in the world, and we would all like to think that justice exists somewhere.
Well, it does.  Its right here in our own minds, and no where else.
Karma is causality, the law of cause and effect, and nothing more.
Karma, like Mother Nature, could care less about  justice.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 17 15:38:19 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:38:19 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606171740.AA18412@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 03:36 AM 6/17/96 -0400, Alexis wrote:

>The Swede claims to have
>left Communism when he experienced a "religious conversion", oh well, that's
>no improvement!

Alexis is misqouting me, probably on purpose. I never used the words
"religious conversion". Here is what I wrote

>Also, for the record, I have actively been fighting communism since my
>spiritual "conversion".

I would suspect that even Alexis has to admit that there is a difference
between "spiritual" and "religious". Organized religion, as I knew it at the
time, seemed to me to be a gathering place for those who chose to be
deceived. My "spiritual conversion" was an awakening, a realization, a
sudden and lasting perception of consciousness being everywhere present.
Before that time I could see nothing but matter. In my conception of life
matter was the ultimate reality and science was my "religion" (although I
would have been very angry if anyone had pointed that out). After my
"conversion" I saw everything as expression of consciousness, and the
absolute foundation of existence as absolute, unmanifest consciousness. I
even started to call this formless, ultimate reality "God". Since communism
is very materialistic (someone could dispute this and say "satanistic") in
its world view I had to let go of it and soon even came to the realization
that it denies (or at least tries to deny) the opportunity of spiritual
evolution to its "victims".

If Alexis (and Chuck), even after this explanation, likes to condemn or
ridicule me for my "Communist past", so be it. I would not be surprised.

Bjorn



roxendal@alpinet.net

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 18:32:15 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:32:15 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617183215.006c0fd0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)

At 12:02 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>>
>>Daniel ...
>
>Well, I have made my own views very plain over the years,
>both here and on Peacenet.  My feeling is that the core
>teachings as given out, are exoteric and simplistic--
>suitable perhaps for Joe Sixpack, but covering over
>many deeper and more esoteric meanings.  I am not
>sure, but I think Eldon agrees with me on this.  My premise,
>basically, is that reincarnation and karma, for an example
>of core teachings, are a whole lot more complicated than
>what we find in the literature.  The problem is that the
>literature appears to contain step-by-step processes
>and descriptions, and would seem to have addressed
>karma and reincarnation in depth.  My view is that this
>is an illusion.  Karma is *not* rewards and punishments--
>this is merely how we as human beings perceive it.
>Karma is causality, the same causality that we find
>in physics with the exception of its application on other
>planes rather than just the physical.  And causality (order)
>has "holes" in it, which I call the Chaos Factor.  Karma
>also must be seen as both individual and collective,
>and the collective part works on the mental level under
>very complicated telepathic stategems that we only
>barely recognize.  All of the other core teachings are
>the same way.  They appear to be completely discussed
>in the literature, but this is simply not so; they are all
>much more complicated than they appear when put
>into words.
>
>	Jerry S.

Jerry:

While I do not agree with everything you say, I do agree with most of it.
The problem, as I see it, and obviously as John Cooper sees it too, is that
when one of us "small 't' theosophists" makes a complicated and complete
statement of our views, complete with alternatives and supporting arguments
etc. And JRC has done so quite voluminously, and as I have been doing in my
ongoing discussions with Alan Bain, that is a thing which is completely
ignored. I thought I had an ongoing public discussion with Martin Euser
regarding my published pamphlet "Ruminations", but only the other day
discovered it had been private. That, of course, was my own error for being
so computer illiterate. But now the ruminations string is public, and I plan
to continue the discussion of those subjects on alt.theosophy (Please do try
to join us there).

Now it seems to me that Daniel Caldwell will accept no "supporting
arguments" that are not quotes from "Theosophical Literature". These I am
not willing to use as I believe a good deal of "Theosophical Literature" to
be on the level of Sunday School Homilies.

I, for one, would like to see more serious, advanced level, discussions on
Theos-list. We had pretty well agreed to commence an on-going discussion of
the effects of CWL on theosophy....I haven't seen much except for Doss's
spirited defense of Leadbeater. I for one, hesitate to respond in that case
for Doss is what I call a "true believer", and I don't think he is
interested in facts, that is in this instance ONLY. He's such a nice person
one wouldn't want to really hurt his feelings in any way. I wish he'd read
"Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett, as I have, and that might help him, he
has, after all an analytical mind.

I do wish we'd have more serious discussion on this list but one can
scarcely get it going. What do you think can be done?

alexis dolgorukii
>	Member, TI
>
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 18:45:45 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:45:45 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617184545.006cab74@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations

At 12:03 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>	Personally, I don't believe in "universal justice" either.  Justice
>is a feeling that we human beings have, a sense of fairness.  Animals
>do not have this feeling at all.  Nor does anything except human beings.
>Our sense of fairness, and our desire for justice, will cause us to create
>a God, if one doesn't exist.  Because there is obviously no justice in this
>world, we create two new worlds, call them Heaven and Hell, and hope
>that everyone will have justice there, after death here.  Or, we create the
>notion of karma, and believe that we are all punished or rewarded for
>actions in our past lives.  Now I can see no difference at all between
>these two.  They serve as excuses for the fact that there is no justice
>in the world, and we would all like to think that justice exists somewhere.
>Well, it does.  Its right here in our own minds, and no where else.
>Karma is causality, the law of cause and effect, and nothing more.
>Karma, like Mother Nature, could care less about  justice.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>Jerry: The problem is, as usual, the taking of abstractions and turning
them into Suday School Homilies. Causality is ne thing, but it is so very
easily translated into totally fallacious personal terms. I think most of
the problem here lies in an utterly silly human propensity to think an
abstract universe should be "fair". The fly in  that ointment however, is
that I cannot for the life of me see what is "fair" about our vindictive,
retributive, "Theosophical Core Doctrine" of Karma. A child is born blind
becuase its Mother had syphillis, sure its not "fair" but that's how life
is...unfair. Now for the life of me, I don't see what is "more fair" about
the illusion that the child was born blind becuase of some past action of
some individual on that child's line of spiritual descent with whom that
child has absolutely no connection.Punishing the new born for someone elses
fault is the hight of unfairness. By that criteria then, one could easily
say that for each pregnancy terminated by medical intervention, the fetus
was a murderer being puniched for its "crimes". (I hasten to add that I
fully support freedom of choice, but wish people, when it is appropriate,
would resort to adoption more frequently)

I think my major point is that "Justice" is an entirely human conception, to
foist entirely human conceptions on an entirely un human abstract cosmos, is
both silly, and a waste of time. The goal of evolution is to create an
encompassing realization of the Cosmos, it is not for humans to mold the Cosmos.

alexis dolgorukii, member TI, FTSA

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 17 19:06:34 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:06:34 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960617190634.006b7704@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 01:41 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Alexis is misqouting me, probably on purpose. I never used the words
>"religious conversion". Here is what I wrote

My filter program has obviously malfunctioned, but that allows me to
respond. As I see it, I did NOT misquote you, "On Purpose" or otherwise.
I see no real difference between a "Religious Conversion" and a "Spiritual
Conversion". It is the word "conversion" that makes the difference. It is
also how you respond to things that makes the difference to me. It seems to
me that you have simply gone from one form of authoritarianism to another.
It seems to me that your approach to "spirituality" is the same as your
approach to political systems, you are one of those who wants to impose your
beliefs on others. I see no real difference in one who says "I want to do
the Masters work" and a born-again Christian, or a fervent follower of the
gospel according to Karl Marx. "Core Theosophy" is as authoritarian, and
therefore, is every bit as oppressive as is Roman Catholicism or Marxism.
What I have seen in my short experience of Bjorn Roxendal is that he is a
"true Believer" and "true believers" always oppress or attack those who
disagree with them. You complain that I tend to base my arguments on "here
and now" factuality. But that is the only basis on which people can work
intelligently. "Beliefs" are never truly valid besides for argument.

alexis dolgorukii, member T.I., FTSA
>
>
>
>
>roxendal@alpinet.net
>
>
>

From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 17 19:04:37 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:04:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Meditation & Rituals
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi

Here is an interesting question.

Some consider Meditation is good for the person as well as for everyone.
If this is true, why not meditation is done 8 hours a day or even more.
More meditation better it is.

Same analogy applies. Religious and other rituals are supposed to be
beneficial to the individual and the geographical vicinity. If so why not
these rituals practiced more often. Also we can hire volunteers and
conduct these on a round the clock seven days a week basis.

These are questions that came up after reading a book by a well known
Theosophist.

Any ideas?

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 17 21:09:57 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:09:57 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960617170956_331025308@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Alex,
There seems to have something about that period that made it impossible for
people to act except in mobs.  Whoever screamed the loudest got the votes of
the marching morons with shovels.
We are more likely to get mad at such people and I think the fragmentation of
society has done much for freedom.  It makes it very difficult (though not
yet impossible) for a demogogue to get very far.
Do you remember the MTV ncsa a few years back.  It had footage of Hitler,
Mussolini, STalin and the Mad Mullah and then the voice over said that the
founding fathers came up with a way to keep idiots like that from running the
country--voting.

Chuck
From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Jun 17 21:50:01 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:50:01 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606172150.AA20053@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re: TSA bad Karma


>hi -
>
>I have a question:
>
>what should TSA or Adyar do to relieve/remove their karmic
>bounds and past problems?  seriously,  can they?  if not,  then
>what is their future?
>
>karmic problems include:
>
>AB and CWL
>TSA/Adyar secrecy/conspiracy
>
>my question is trying to address what it really takes (i.e.
>actions in the physical plane) to put things straight for the
>future.
>
>peace -
>
>john e. mead


John, I think the TS can relieve its karmic bonds and once again
become an important and dynamic organization for the world.  But
over the past thirty plus years I've seen nary a sign that the
leadership is willing to even consider making the needed changes.
In the past, I have posted many pages of historical material
discussing where I believe the TS went wrong.  Since most of the
theos-l membership probably never bothered nor cared to read
these postings in the first place, I will just make a simple list
the changes that need to be made and skip the historical issues
and reasons behind them.  Genuine reformation of the TS would
have to begin with the following steps:


1. The irrevocable and permanent closure of the E.S. and the E.R.

2. The complete dissociation of the TS from the Liberal Catholic
Church and Co-Masonry.  The relationship of the TS to these
organizations should be put on the same bases that we have with
any other religion or fraternal organization.

3. Go back to the publishing policies originally established by
Blavatsky, so that books are published in the form that the
authors had intended them.  If a book is abridged, it should be
clearly marked as such.  Further, an abridgement should really be
such--not a revision or a reorganization of the book for the
purpose of obscuring the author's opinions or to rewrite history.

4. The Lodges must be allowed to study and do whatever they want,
as long as those studies and activities serve to promote the
three objects of the TS.

5. Adyar must give autonomy to the sections.  The sections must
give autonomy to the lodges.

6. TSA Bylaws concerning the election of officers must be revised
back to what they were in 1980.

7. Adyar must get out of its time warp and start thinking about
what is relevant to the three objects in today's world.

      If the TS were to take the above actions, it would be well
on its way to leaving behind its past karma.  Issues concerning
"CWL, AB, conspiracy and secrecy" would finally and truly be in
the past.  I have specific ideas about what could be done in item
7, but it would be a waste of time to consider them before the
other changes were made.  I don't expect to live to see those
changes anyway, so it doesn't matter.  The failure of TSA's
efforts to become relevant to today's world is because they keep
playing with item seven and overlooking the problems caused by
the other six.  They haven't figured out that it doesn't work
that way.  Corpses don't go away by ignoring them.

You ask what is the future of the TS if these reforms are *not*
made?  I would answer that it will keep on going like it is
indefinitely.  Even if the membership dropped from 4,000 to 400,
or if all of lodges went bust, or if the membership shifted to
100% unattached, or if most of the sections were eventually
expelled, it wouldn't matter.


JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------


From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 17 22:10:03 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:10:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960617183215.006c0fd0@pop.slip.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote:

> At 12:02 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >>  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
> >>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
> >>
> >>Daniel ...
> >
> >Well, I have made my own views very plain over the years,
> >both here and on Peacenet.  My feeling is that the core
> >teachings as given out, are exoteric and simplistic--
> >suitable perhaps for Joe Sixpack, but covering over
> >many deeper and more esoteric meanings.  I am not
> >sure, but I think Eldon agrees with me on this.  My premise,
> >basically, is that reincarnation and karma, for an example
> >of core teachings, are a whole lot more complicated than
> >what we find in the literature.  The problem is that the
> >literature appears to contain step-by-step processes
> >and descriptions, and would seem to have addressed
> >karma and reincarnation in depth.  My view is that this
> >is an illusion.  Karma is *not* rewards and punishments--
> >this is merely how we as human beings perceive it.
> >Karma is causality, the same causality that we find
> >in physics with the exception of its application on other
> >planes rather than just the physical.  And causality (order)
> >has "holes" in it, which I call the Chaos Factor.  Karma
> >also must be seen as both individual and collective,
> >and the collective part works on the mental level under
> >very complicated telepathic stategems that we only
> >barely recognize.  All of the other core teachings are
> >the same way.  They appear to be completely discussed
> >in the literature, but this is simply not so; they are all
> >much more complicated than they appear when put
> >into words.
> >
> >	Jerry S.
>
> Jerry:
>
> While I do not agree with everything you say, I do agree with most of it.
> The problem, as I see it, and obviously as John Cooper sees it too, is that
> when one of us "small 't' theosophists" makes a complicated and complete
> statement of our views, complete with alternatives and supporting arguments
> etc. And JRC has done so quite voluminously, and as I have been doing in my
> ongoing discussions with Alan Bain, that is a thing which is completely
> ignored. I thought I had an ongoing public discussion with Martin Euser
> regarding my published pamphlet "Ruminations", but only the other day
> discovered it had been private. That, of course, was my own error for being
> so computer illiterate. But now the ruminations string is public, and I plan
> to continue the discussion of those subjects on alt.theosophy (Please do try
> to join us there).
>
> Now it seems to me that Daniel Caldwell will accept no "supporting
> arguments" that are not quotes from "Theosophical Literature". These I am
> not willing to use as I believe a good deal of "Theosophical Literature" to
> be on the level of Sunday School Homilies.
>
> I, for one, would like to see more serious, advanced level, discussions on
> Theos-list. We had pretty well agreed to commence an on-going discussion of
> the effects of CWL on theosophy....I haven't seen much except for Doss's
> spirited defense of Leadbeater. I for one, hesitate to respond in that case
> for Doss is what I call a "true believer", and I don't think he is
> interested in facts, that is in this instance ONLY. He's such a nice person
> one wouldn't want to really hurt his feelings in any way. I wish he'd read
> "Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett, as I have, and that might help him, he
> has, after all an analytical mind.

	Alexis: Thanks for your comments. FYI, I have had a copy to
Tillett's book for several years. I have no reason yet to change my mind
about the good CWL and AB have done for TS and countless members of TS,
including myself.

	...MKRamadoss


>
> I do wish we'd have more serious discussion on this list but one can
> scarcely get it going. What do you think can be done?
>
> alexis dolgorukii
> >	Member, TI
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 17 21:14:53 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:14:53 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606172317.AA21531@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 03:03 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Alexis is misqouting me, probably on purpose. I never used the words
>>"religious conversion". Here is what I wrote
>
>My filter program has obviously malfunctioned, but that allows me to
>respond. As I see it, I did NOT misquote you,

Alexis, this is a matter of FACTS, not of "as I see it". You quoted me as
writing "religious conversion" which I did NOT write, which the record
clearly proves. Intentional or not, when you quote somebody and change
his/her words you are misquoting him/her. This is not a question of opinion.

>I see no real difference between a "Religious Conversion" and a "Spiritual
>Conversion".

I think you see from my previous post what I meant with "conversion" in this
case. BEFORE this conversion I could only perceive life as consisting of
Matter, AFTER I perceived it as consciousness or "spirit".

> It is the word "conversion" that makes the difference.

So, what is wrong with having ones eyes opened to go from denying dimensions
of reality to accepting them? Is not theosophy about growing spiritually and
expanding ones consciousness?

> It seems to
>me that you have simply gone from one form of authoritarianism to another.

Because I now acknowledge a spiritual reality? Come on.

>It seems to me that your approach to "spirituality" is the same as your
>approach to political systems, you are one of those who wants to impose your
>beliefs on others.

This is another strange interpretation. I am one of the most tolerant people
you will ever find, when it comes to religious and political beliefs. I do
not feel a need to change other people's beliefs. I respect people and what
they believe in (which I did NOT do before my conversion) be they Mormons,
Seventh-day Adventists, Moslems or whatever. I have found so many wise and
spiritually advanced people from all kinds of belief systems that I have
come to think that TRUE religion is more a matter of  quality of heart than
mental belief system. You are simply reading me wrong.


I see no real difference in one who says "I want to do
>the Masters work" and a born-again Christian, or a fervent follower of the
>gospel according to Karl Marx.

I can assure you that I DO want to work for the masters. The spiritual
hierarchy has a plan for bringing the evolutions of this planet to a higher
plan of consciousness. Theosophy was ONE building block in this project, one
among many. The missions of Jesus, Buddha and many others were also building
blocks. And they are still building, and, yes, I desire to help with this
project. And I think many on this list share this desire.

>"Core Theosophy" is as authoritarian, and
>therefore, is every bit as oppressive as is Roman Catholicism or Marxism.

I don't even know what "Core Theosophy" is. I enjoy theosophical writings,
as I do many other spiritual writings. I believe that Blavatsky was doing a
job for the masters, but I am not a literalist and can never become one.

>What I have seen in my short experience of Bjorn Roxendal is that he is a
>"true Believer" and "true believers" always oppress or attack those who
>disagree with them.

Interesting. I would really like to know if the consensus on this list is
that I "oppress or attack those who disagree with them". It seems to me like
those words are much more descriptive of some other list members.

>You complain that I tend to base my arguments on "here
>and now" factuality.

I have never complained about that. Again, you simply don't care about what
I really say, but instead reply to and attack things I never said. I do
"complain" about you believing that you base your arguments "only on facts",
when I usually see little more than strong opinions accompanied by strong
emotions.

Bjorn
roxendal@alpinet.net

From C.Carli@agora.stm.it Tue Jun 18 01:44:45 1996
Date: Tue,  18 Jun 96 1:44:45 GMT
From: C.Carli@agora.stm.it
Message-Id: <199606180153.BAA05583@agora.stm.it>
Subject: Ri: Sai Baba


Per theos-l@vnet.net.

Hallo!

    Thanks to all who have replyed about Sai Baba.
    Someone knows his teachments?

    Best Regards

Claudio Carli By ATHANOR (Claudio Carli) Esonet National Coordinator

*************************************************************************

** Internet E-Mail: C.Carli@agora.stm.it			       ** ** Esonet WWW Page:
http://www.agora.stm.it/esonet/esomain.htm	 ** ** con la Grande Guida ai
Siti Esoterici su Internet !!!	       **
*************************************************************************


 --- MMMR v4.60unr *  +[periodo di prova scaduto da 16 giorni.]+


From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Mon Jun 17 22:15:07 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:15:07 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606180017.AA22107@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)




At 06:14 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>	Alexis: Thanks for your comments. FYI, I have had a copy to
>Tillett's book for several years. I have no reason yet to change my mind
>about the good CWL and AB have done for TS and countless members of TS,
>including myself.
>
>	...MKRamadoss

Alexis seems to have a hard time dealing with a combination of good and bad.
He likes to put people in either this or that catagory, he doesn't like to
deal with the mixture. Yet, in real life there is almost always both. I
think it is fair to give credit where credit is due, as well as speak out
against the negatives. To me, it is obvious that both CWL and AB has done A
LOT of good. It is also quite obvious that they made serious mistakes.
That's life, and that's how we learn. Perhaps only Alexis is pure and
perfect enough to cast the first stone?

Bjorn



roxendal@alpinet.net

From andres@rd.nacsis.ac.jp Tue Jun 18 00:45:15 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:45:15 +0900
From: Frederic ANDRES 
Message-Id: <31C5FC1B.4925@rd.nacsis.ac.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Ri: Sai Baba
References: <199606180153.BAA05583@agora.stm.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

C.Carli@agora.stm.it wrote:
>
> Per theos-l@vnet.net.
>
> Hallo!
>
>     Thanks to all who have replyed about Sai Baba.
>     Someone knows his teachments?
>
>     Best Regards
>
> Claudio Carli By ATHANOR (Claudio Carli) Esonet National Coordinator
>
> *************************************************************************
>
> ** Internet E-Mail: C.Carli@agora.stm.it                               ** ** Esonet WWW Page:
> http://www.agora.stm.it/esonet/esomain.htm       ** ** con la Grande Guida ai
> Siti Esoterici su Internet !!!         **
> *************************************************************************
>
>  --- MMMR v4.60unr *  +[periodo di prova scaduto da 16 giorni.]+

please look at http://www.atmapress.com/TOC.html
               http://www.atmapress.com/gita_sai_baba.html
	       http://www.bestweb.com/prom/


there are a lot of documents about Sai Baba.


Regards,
Frederic Andres
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 17 23:15:18 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:15:18 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <199606170102.SAA01826@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606170102.SAA01826@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky
Foundation  writes
>I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in support
>of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>Daniel

Do you not think this approach is more than simplistic?  Might it not
simply be possible that in certain areas at least, "core" theosophy is
*wrong*?  Under such a circumstance, there is not necessarily an
alternative.  Consider the statement, "Alan Bain has red hair."  Not
only is this incorrect, but it has always been incorrect.  This Alan
Bain, anyway, has gone from blond to mouse to greyish-white.  IOW, the
statement is false.  Maybe one could argue that the "alternative" is the
*current* truth regarding the color of Alan's hair.  But supposing the
statement is, "Alan Bain has three ears."  This is simply untrue, and to
say that the alternative is two ears is not going to shake the world.

Take the argument a stage further: "Alan is a reincarnation of an
ancient Egyptian slave."  This presupposes that some form of
reincarnation is a fact.  Here are some alternatives:

1. Alan is not a reincarnation of an Egyptian slave.
2. Reincarnation is false.
3. Reincarnation is true, but 1. above is false.
4. Reincarnation is true, but not in the manner presented in "core"
theosophical writings.

A alternative model of reincarnation for 4. could be offered, but could
no more be validated by any scientific approach than the existing
"theosophical" model (which owes, *IMO*, much to the vivid imagination
of C.W.Leadbeater which led Ernest Wood to become sceptical about the
"Lives" of Alcyone and others.

Appeals to "The Masters" are only valid if

1. The "Masters" are or were real living beings.
2. They actually said and wrote the words attributed to them.
3. If 1. and 2. are true, did they give facts or opinions, and if so,
how might these be verified today?

For example, CWL was completely wrong about life on Mars. His other
clairvoyant experiences may have been more accurate, or may not, but how
likely is it that *anyone's* clairvoyant experiences are 100% accurate?

To requote the opening above,

> We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.

But, if anyone is interested in other models, I offer for deep thought a
quote from "The Company of Avalon" by Frederick Bligh Bond, a British
psychic researcher who left the T.S. in 1909 along with Sinnet, Mead,
Kingsland and others:

[From ~The Company of Avalon~ by F. Bligh Bond, published by Basil
Blackwell of Broad Street, Oxford (England) in 1924.  The book is an
account of some of the results of automatic writing received during
psychic research into the foundations of Glastonbury Abbey in Somerset,
England.]

"In the script of J.A., published under the title The Return of
Johannes, the following significant passages occur. After stating that
to the "Company " of the brethren whose memories are communicated the
Abbey still stands perfect as it was in its prime, or rather, as it was
in the minds of those who conceived its design, we are led to infer that
their united memory can reproduce its entire history. By clothing
themselves in the garment of earth-recollection they can recall its
history as one continuous whole.

'Each one, in his remembrance, is the link which makes for us all the
faire story of Glaston as one continuous whole. So I, being linked in
the spirit with Eawulf who comes from out the Danes in olden time, see
with his eyes, hear with his ears, and live in mine own spiritual life
the life that he lived in his day.... So does Eawulf, and so does Abbot
Kent who loved the Mere and there took his pleasaunce, goe with me and
in me, and I in him to see the sunset imaged in the waters and hear the
tide ycoming in the sedges of Cock Lake ere it reached me over dear
Mere. So being united and yet separate - united in sympathy and yet
separate in that he is hym and I, Johannes - soe, I say, do we have and
live a hundred lives where once we lived but one. Thus are we. Is it not
the Paradise of Saints, and not the Purgatory of Sinners, in which we
all dwell and praise and rejoice as one?'"

Text scanned and posted by Alan Bain
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 18 02:52:57 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:52:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960617215536.214f9a42@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Future of Theosophy FAQ


 Excerpt From: 	The Key to Theosophy - H. P. Blavatsky
 	
 ------------------------------------------------------

            THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

 Enq:	Tell  me  what  do  you  expect  for Theosophy in the
        future?

 THEO:	If you speak of *Theosophy*, I answer that, as it has
        existed eternally throughout the endless cycles  upon
        cycles on the Past, so it will ever exist  throughout
        the infinitudes  of the  Future because  Theosophy is
        synonymous with *Everlasting Truth*.

 Enq:	Pardon  me;  I  meant  to  ask  you  rather about the
        prospects of the Theosophical Society.

 THEO:	Its  future  will  depend  almost  entirely  upon the
        degree  of  selflessness,  earnestness, devotion, and
        last, but not the  least, on the amount  of knowledge
        and wisdom  possessed by  those members,  on whom  it
        will fall  to carry  on the  work, and  to direct the
        Society after the death of the Founders.

 Enq:	I quite  see the  importance of  their being selfless
        and devoted but I do not grasp how their  *knowledge*
        can be  as vital  a factor  in the  question as these
        other qualities. Surely the literature which  already
        exists,  and  to  which  constant additions are still
        being made, ought to be sufficient?

 THEO:	I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric
        doctrine,  though  that  is  most  important; I spoke
        rather of the great need which our successors in  the
        guidance of  the Society  will have  of unbiased  and
        clear   judgment.   Every   such   attempt   as   the
        Theosophical Society has  hitherto ended in  failure,
        because, sooner or later,  it has degenerated into  a
        sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and  so
        lost  by  imperceptible  degrees  that vitality which
        living truth alone can impart. You must remember that
        all our members have been bred and born in some creed
        or  religion,  that  all  are  more  or less of their
        generation   both   physically   and   mentally,  and
        consequently that their judgment is but too likely to
        be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of
        these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from
        such inherent bias, or  at least taught to  recognize
        it instantly and so avoid  being led away by it,  the
        result can only be that the Society will drift off on
        to some  sandbank of  thought or  another, and  there
        remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.
 Enq:	If this danger be averted?

 THEO:	Then the Society  will live on  into and through  the
        twentieth  century.  It  will  gradually  leaven  and
        permeate the great  mass of thinking  and intelligent
        people  with  its  large-minded  and  noble  ideas of
        Religion, Duty, and  Philanthropy. Slowly but  surely
        it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds  and
        dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will break
        down racial  and national  antipathies and  barriers,
        and will open the way to practical realization of the
        Brotherhood of all men. Through its teaching, through
        the philosophy which  it has rendered  accessible and
        intelligible to the modern mind, the West will  learn
        to understand  and appreciate  the East  at its  true
        value. Furthermore,  the development  of the  psychic
        powers  and  faculties,  the  premonitory symptoms of
        which are  already visible  in America,  will proceed
        healthily and  normally. Mankind  will be  saved from
        the terrible dangers,  both mental and  bodily, which
        are inevitable when that unfolding takes place, as it
        threatens to do, in a hot-bed of selfishness and  all
        evil passions. Man's  mental and psychic  growth will
        proceed in harmony with his moral improvement,  while
        his material surroundings will reflect the peace  and
        fraternal  good-will  which  will  reign in his mind,
        instead of the discord and strife which is everywhere
        apparent around us to-day.

 Enq:	A  truly  delightful  picture!  But  tell  me, do you
        really  expect  all  this  to  be accomplished in one
        short century?

 THEO:	Scarcely. But I  must tell you  that during the  last
        quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made  by
        those "Masters," of  whom I have  spoken, to help  on
        the spiritual  progress of  Humanity in  a marked and
        definite way. Towards the  close of each century  you
        will invariably find  that an outpouring  or upheaval
        of spirituality -- or call it mysticism if you prefer
        -- has  taken place.  Some one  or more  persons have
        appeared in the world as their agents, and a  greater
        or less amount of  occult knowledge and teaching  has
        been given out. If you  care to do so, you  can trace
        these movements back, century  by century, as far  as
        our detailed historical records extend.

 Enq:	But  how  does  this  bear  on  the  future  of   the
        Theosophical Society?

 THEO:	If the present attempt,  in the form of  our Society,
        succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then
        it will be in  existence as an organized,  living and
        healthy body when the  time comes for the  efforts of
        the  XXth  century.  The  general  condition of men's
        minds and hearts will have been improved and purified
        by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have  said,
        their  prejudices  and  dogmatic  illusions will have
        been, to some extent at least, removed. Not only  so,
        but besides a  large and accessible  literature ready
        to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous
        and *united* body of people ready to welcome the  new
        torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of  men
        prepared for his message, a language ready for him in
        which  to  clothe  the  new  truths  he  brings,   an
        organization awaiting his arrival, which will  remove
        the   merely   mechanical,   material  obstacles  and
        difficulties from  his path.  Think how  much one, to
        whom such an opportunity is given, could  accomplish.
        Measure it by  comparison with what  the Theosophical
        Society actually *has* achieved in the last  fourteen
        years,  without   *any*  of   these  advantages   and
        surrounded  by  hosts  of  hindrances which would not
        hamper the  new leader.  Consider all  this, and then
        tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say that  if
        the Theosophical Society  survives and lives  true to
        its  mission,  to  its  original impulses through the
        next hundred years -- tell me, I say, if I go too far
        in  asserting  that  earth  will  be  a heaven in the
        twenty-first century  in comparison  with what  it is
        now!

 	Finis
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 17 22:15:51 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:15:51 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Meditation & Rituals
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
"m.k. ramadoss"  writes
>Hi
>
>Here is an interesting question.
>
>Some consider Meditation is good for the person as well as for everyone.
>If this is true, why not meditation is done 8 hours a day or even more.
>More meditation better it is.
>
>Same analogy applies. Religious and other rituals are supposed to be
>beneficial to the individual and the geographical vicinity. If so why not
>these rituals practiced more often. Also we can hire volunteers and
>conduct these on a round the clock seven days a week basis.
>
>These are questions that came up after reading a book by a well known
>Theosophist.
>
>Any ideas?
>
We could re-invent the prayer wheel?

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Tue Jun 18 01:34:01 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:34:01 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606180336.AA23746@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

At 09:21 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>For example, CWL was completely wrong about life on Mars.

What did he say about life on Mars? Maybe he was only partially wrong.

>how
>likely is it that *anyone's* clairvoyant experiences are 100% accurate?

100% unlikely.

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 17 01:12:36 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:12:36 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL03b.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0

CWL03b.TXT

This is the first part of the REPLY mentioned in CWL03a.TXT, and may end
up as three, rather than two files.  Mead and his colleagues had a great
deal to say ...

[Footnotes in the original have been incorporated in the text in square
brackets]

Alan Bain
-------------------------------------------------------------------

{bold, underlined}: To the Members of the Theosophical Society:
   For Private circulation among members only.{end bold, etc.}

THE LEADBEATER CASE

A REPLY

TO THE PRESIDENT'S LETTER

Of November, 1908



Printed by E.E.MARSDEN, Carr Street, Manchester; and Published by
   G.R.S.MEAD, HERBERT BURROWS, W.KINGSLAND, & EDITH WARD, at 16,
   Selwood Place, Onslow Gardens, London.S.W.
   -----------------------------------------------

NOTE

At a representative meeting of many of the older and well-known
   members or the Theosophical Society, held in London, on November
   13th, the present situation with regard to the Leadbeater Case
   was fully discussed. The President's Letter in answer to the
   request of the Convention of the British Section that she should
   take steps to put an end to the scandalous state of affairs
   which now obtains in the Society, was carefully considered. In
   view of the fact that she refuses to take any steps, but on the
   contrary would welcome the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater, and
   that, too, without the public repudiation which she promised
   should be exacted of him, it was decided that a Reply to Mrs.
   Besant's Letter should be issued, and Miss Edith Ward, Mr. Mead,
   Mr. Kingsland, and Mr. Herbert Burrows were appointed a
   Committee to draw up the Reply.
   -------------------------------------------------------------------


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

The recent Letter of Mrs. Besant, as President of the Theosophical
   Society, which has been sent to all the members of this Section
   (and also to all the other Sections of the Society), purports to
   be her reply to an earnest appeal, by the British Section in
   Convention assembled, to the members of the Theosophical
   Society, and especially to the President and members of the
   General Council - to unite in putting an end to the scandalous
   state of affairs which now exists in the Society with regard to
   what is known as the Leadbeater teaching, so that the
   repudiation by the Society of this pernicious teaching may be
   unequivocal and final.

By formal direction of the Convention (held in London, July 4 and
   5, 1908), a Special Report of the resolutions and of the
   proceedings which led up to them (including a full statement of
   the facts which necessitated the appeal and the debate on the
   subject) was prepared, by a Special Committee (whom the
   Convention unanimously appointed), to be issued to the members
   of the Section. This Committee consisted of Miss Edith Ward,
   Messrs.  G.R.S.Mead, Herbert Whyte, Herbert Burrows, and Mrs.
   Sharpe, General Secretary of the Section. An account of the
   proceedings of the Committee will be found in The Vahan of
   October, 1908.

-------------------------------------------------------

THE REPLY

This Report, which was duly prepared and passed by the whole
   Committee, has been suppressed by the General Secretary, who has
   been supported by a majority of the Executive Committee - nine
   to five.

The nine are: Miss Bright, Miss Green, Mrs. Larmuth, Mr. Leo, Miss
   Mallet, Mr. Hodgson Smith, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Whyte, and Mrs.
   Sharpe. (Mrs. Sharpe did not vote on the actual resolution
   supporting her action, but voted on all other resolutions in the
   same sense.)

The five are: Mr. Burrows, Mr. Glass, Mr. Kingsland, Mr. Mead, and
   Miss Ward.

Against this solid majority the minority who have endeavoured to
   carry out the wishes of the Convention have been powerless.
   This policy of suppression has been vigorously maintained; and
   now, more than four and a ha1f months after the Convention, the
   members are still in ignorance of these important proceedings.
   In spite of a resolution unanimously passed at the Convention
   that The Vahan, the sectional organ, should be open to the
   free discussion of all matters of interest to the Section, Mrs.
   Sharpe refused to print even the following document:

The Report of the Debate, for which two additional sessions of the
   recent Convention of the British Section of the Theosophical
   Society were required, and which culminated in the passing of
   two very important Resolutions, has now been agreed to
   unanimously by the Special Committee appointed by the Convention
   to prepare it for publication.

The General Secretary, however, refuses to publish the document,
   and is supported in her refusal by a majority of the Executive
   Committee. We, the undersigned members of the Special Committee
   (of five), are prepared to carry out the instructions of the
   General Council in Convention duly assembled.

The official means of issuing the Report, however having been
   denied us, we now apply directly to the members of the Section
   for the necessary funds and addresses (which may be sent to any
   of the undersigned), in order that we may carry out the
   imperative duty of acquainting the Section with the present
   grave state of affairs.

(Signed) G. R. S. MEAD, HERBERT BURROWS.  EDITH WARD.

It has thus been deliberately rendered impossible for the facts of
   the case to be placed before the members. And now with only Mrs.
   Besant's letter before them, the members are being urged to sign
   a petition for Mr. Leadbeater's reinstatement. [Mr. Burrows and
   Mr.Mead have now printed their speeches themselves in a pamphlet,
   and copies may be obtained from them.]

Even in Mrs. Besant's Letter, which has gone out to the whole
   Society, as well as to the members of this Section, the very
   resolution on which she bases that reply, is not given, and it
   was only at the last moment that the General Secretary of this
   Section found herself compelled to enclose the bare text of that
   resolution with Mrs. Besant's Letter as sent out to the Section.
   [And yet Mrs. Besant (p. 3) claims that she is submitting "the
   whole case to the judgment of the Theosophical Society."]

Even when this opportunity arose Mrs. Sharpe has still suppressed
   the following two very important decisions of the Convention.

By 33 votes to 31 the Convention rejected an amendment, moved by
   Mrs. Sharpe, and seconded by Mr. Ernest Wood (of Manchester):

Welcoming the President's policy of collaboration with Mr. C. W.
   Leadbeater in any work which he is willing to do for the
   Society.

This amendment was rejected on its merits before the debate on the
   Van Hook-Leadbeater resolution (moved as an amendment to Mr.
   Dunlop's resolution) took place. After the protracted debate
   which resulted in the carrying of this resolution, Mr. Bell (of
   Harrogate) moved, and Mr. Wilkinson (of Nottingham) seconded:

That this Convention looks on the teaching given by C. W.
   Leadbeater to certain boys as wholly evil, and hereby expresses
   its judgment on this matter.

This was carried nem. con.

The Van Hook-Leadbeater resolution was carried by 38 votes to 4
   (all the latter cast by one Belgian delegate), 22 declining to
   vote, This resolution, moved in the form of an amendment, was as
   follows:

This Convention of the British Section of the Theosophical Society
   while affirming its loyalty to the first Object of the Society -
   namely, "to form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of
   humanity" - strongly protests against evoking the sentiment of
   brotherhood to countenance what is wrong.

Whereas Dr. Weller van Hook, the present General Secretary of the
   American Section, and so a member of the General Council of the
   Theosophical Society, in a recent Open Letter which he has
   subsequently stated to have been "dictated verbatim by one of
   the Masters," has publicly claimed that the corrupting
   practices, the teaching of which determined the resignation of
   Mr. C.W. Leadbeater, are the high doctrine of Theosophy and the
   "precursor of its introduction into the thought of the outer
   world":-

This Convention declares its abhorrence of such practice, and, in
   view of the incalculable harm to Theosophy and of the disgrace
   which this teaching must inevitably bring upon the Society
   earnestly calls upon all its members, especially the President
   and members of the General Council, to unite in putting an end
   to the present scandalous state of affairs, so that the
   repudiation by the Society of this pernicious teaching may be
   unequivocal and final.

Moved by Herbert Burrows; seconded by G.R.S. Mead; supported by A.
   P. Sinnett C.J. Barker, J.S. Brown, Dr. C.G. Currie, H. R. Hogg,
   B. Keightley, W. Kingsland, W. Scott-Elliot, W. Theobald, B. G.
   Theobald, L. Wallace, C. B. Wheeler, H.L. Shindler, A.P.
   Cattanach, Dr. A. King, Baker Hudson, W.H. Thomas, A.B. Green,
   J.M. Watkins, E.E. Marsden, H.E. Nichol, by the delegates of the
   London and Blavatsky Lodges, and by many others.

Immediately after the vote was taken Miss Dupuis, of the H.P.B.
   Lodge, read the following declaration, in which the majority of
   the representatives who had declined to vote joined by standing
   with her:

We cannot vote for this amendment as it is worded. We will not vote
   against it as it involves so much. We stand and hereby proclaim
   that we utterly condemn the practices alluded to, but refuse to
   condemn any individual.

Reply to the President's Letter.

This serious and earnest appeal to safeguard the good name of the
   Society and to assist in preserving Theosophy from harm, the
   President now rejects with all her strength. Mrs. Besant's reply
   takes the form of special pleading in defence of Mr. Leadbeater;
   she withdraws her former unequivocal condemnation of his
   teaching and substitutes for it equivocal phrases; humbly
   apologises to him; and finally invites the Society to vote for
   Mr. Leadbeater's triumphant reinstatement without further
   guarantee.

The change in Mrs. Besant's attitude is amazing, but still more
   astonishing is her forgetfulness of her emphatic pledges given
   to the Society at the time of her election to the Presidency.
----------------------
Scanned and uploaded by Alan Bain
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 18 07:03:43 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:03:43 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618070343.006d96a0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

At 10:55 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>question ---
>
>you are Radha....  what are you going to do today?
>
>peace  --
>
>john e. mead
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>Theos-L etc. list-owner
>Member of Theosophical Society in America
>Member of Theosophy International
>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Response to question: I am Radha....""Hmmm, let's see I have a headache and
am in a bad mood becuase the weather's lousy...what will make my day" I
know, I'll throw some National Section out, that always makes me feel
good!...Hmmm can't throw out the Americans that's where all the money comes
from....hmmm..those Australians are always studying Alice Bailey....and
their aborigines...out they go!...there now my headaches gone away..what's
for lunch?"

alexis dolgorukii

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 18 21:42:58 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:42:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960618164539.3537d53a@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma


Alexis:

thanks for the nice words about me. Afterall we all can and do have widely
differing opinions on a lot of things. The only thing that unites all of us
are the three objects of the TS. If we all fight with each other and all of
us go away, there are a lot of people who I think will rejoice at the
prospect of these lists shut down. This is the only forum left to discuss
openly all the issues which each one of us think is very relevant to keep
the TS from self-destruction (it may continue as a mailorder outfit for a
long time), but not as a vibrant living open unsecret organization that HPB
and the Founders dreamed of. So let not our differences discourage our
common commitment. If after all our efforts, we see the TS as we know it go
down the tube, then it is on account of forces generated by itself and not
from any outside entity.

Let us unite and see what we can do to open the eyes of the bureaucrats.


MK Ramadoss
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 18 20:54:51 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:54:51 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606182200.SAA29576@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma

>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, John E. Mead wrote:
>
>> hi -
>>
>> I have a question:
>>
>> what should TSA or Adyar do to relieve/remove their karmic bounds
>> and past problems?  seriously,  can they?  if not,  then what
>> is their future?
>>
>> karmic problems include:
>>
>> AB and CWL
>
>	1. In spite of all the discussion that goes on here, I do not see
>AB and CWL as really a Karmic Problem at all. Both have helped thousands
>and thousands of people both in and outside the TS which has helped the
>individuals immensely. In India, where I lived several decades, both are
>still heroes for those who know about them. As for CWL, his greatest
>contribution is the discovery of Krishnamurti.
...............................................................................

Dear folks, if you don't mind my saying so, discovering Krishanmurti wasn't
the greatest thing CWL and AB ever did. Anyone who's read their works can
attest to the fact that they were practical thinkers in their own right.
They added a great deal to the practical body of knnowledge known as
Theosophy. Discovering Krishnamurti, who developed his own ideas, was just
one thing they did ... for better or for worse.

Liesel
............................................................................



 Krishnamurti has helped
>thousands and thousands of people to better understand themselves and
>their relationships with our fellow humans. AB also shares an equal
>amount of good Karma in that she was totally convinced of the future role
>K is going to play in the world and supported in every way she can. It is
>to be pointed out that (1) discovery of Krishnaji took place after couple
>of years after CWL came back as a member of TS after the complaints about
>his advise to some of boys and (2) Much of the objections to CWL came
>from the British and American Sections and all other Sections supported
>his comeback to TS. On the balance apart from all the messages etc we see
>on AB and CWL, the real Karma is on the good side of TS.
>
>
>> TSA/Adyar secrecy/conspiracy
>>
>
>	I think on the secrecy question a joint effort should be made
>from the Lodges and must be brought to the attention of Radha Burnier and
>John Algeo. Without a unified feedback, nothing is going to happen.  I
>have not seen any conspiracy yet.  The secrecy may come from the fact
>that there may be a thinking from the hierarchical school that the top
>person should be trusted and in some cases some may feel they are
>inspired decisions so everyone should support them.
>
>	It is the lack of two-way open and up and down communication that
>is missing.
>
>	Let us try to address these head on and see what happens. I am
>confident if we but try, we can get some results.
>
>
> > my question is trying to address what it really takes (i.e.
>actions > in the physical plane) to put things straight for the future.
>>
>> peace -
>>
>> john e. mead
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>> Theos-L etc. list-owner
>> Member of Theosophical Society in America
>> Member of Theosophy International
>> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>> [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
>
>
>
>

From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 18 21:02:11 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:02:11 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606182207.SAA04391@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: To MIke Grenier, re Theosophy becoming a religion

>For me, I'm too ignorant to *know* which truths from among
>those proclaimed are actually true. Its easier to fall back
>on HPB then to discover the additional truths on one's own.

Dear Mike,

The point is not that you may be ignorant, but that you have as fine a sense
of what sounds true to you as does anyone else. Your ignorance may be that
you've only read very few Theosophical books, but your wisdom is that, as a
human being, you can ascertain exactly what fits into your scheme of things.
Whatever Theosophy you espouse, the purpose of it is that it fits into your
scheme of things, not the other way around.

Liesel

From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 18 21:06:08 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:06:08 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606182211.SAA06802@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

>question ---
>
>you are Radha....  what are you going to do today?
>
>peace  --
>
>john e. mead
>-----------------------------------------------------------

Put a security guard outside the Leadbeater room, to keep the spirits of CWL
& of his pupils shimmering in the pristine purity of devachan.

Liesel



>John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>Theos-L etc. list-owner
>Member of Theosophical Society in America
>Member of Theosophy International
>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>

From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 18 21:11:48 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:11:48 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606182217.SAA10200@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

>At 10:55 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>question ---
>>
>>you are Radha....  what are you going to do today?
>>
>>peace  --
>>
>>john e. mead
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>>Theos-L etc. list-owner
>>Member of Theosophical Society in America
>>Member of Theosophy International
>>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>>[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>Get all the National Presidents/Secretaries for an urgent meeting. Suggest
>that each of them to visit each lodge and study center and also get on
>internet theos-xxxx lists and listen to the members and find out the
>underlying problems. After say 6 months again get another meeting setup to
>review the findings. Invite all members who are interested and able to
>attend both the meetings. Then everyone can feel that everything is done in
>the open.
>
>I don't know if this will work. The National Presidents and Section
>Secretaries may rebel because everyone operates in the secrecy mode. I just
>saw a sample attitude when I tried to get the voting tally info from John
>Algeo even when the law says members can access all books and records of TSA
>for any purpose.
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>******** Peace to all living beings*****************
>
>         M K Ramadoss
>
>
>Peace to all dead beings as well, as long as they are friendly

Liesel
..............................................................................

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 18 15:00:05 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:00:05 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <199606180312.XAA22255@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606180312.XAA22255@katie.vnet.net>, "John E. Mead"
 writes
>what can we do to resolve our differences in this very local medium?
>
>
>peace -
>
>john e. mead

We could start by agreeing to try to be polite to each other at all
times, not to employ personal pejorative remarks, even if the apparent
facts are unpalatable to us individually.  Where there is dispute, then
let those who bring up the dispute also bring up the *explained* reasons
for disputing whatever the question is.

We now have alt.theosophy, which is a good place to thrash out
personality problems - in fact it is probably a better place than any of
the theos- lists.

2 penn'orth.

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 Wed Jun 19 00:16:55 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:16:55 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618201654_137868923@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

Answer:
Get out of bed.
Eat vegetables.
Write boring lectures guaranteed to put everyone into a state of passive
somnambulance.
Decide which sections to excommunicate this month.

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:23:08 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:23:08 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618202307_137873468@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma

John,
I don't know if there is an answer.  The TS is made up of mad individualists,
some of whom rejoice in it and some who are terrified by it.  Add to that mix
the generational differences and cultural backgrounds and you have one hell
of a stew.
Actually, we tend to get along pretty well, considering everything.  And we
must be honest and realize that no group of people is going to be totally
harmonius.  At least we don't have a history of killing each other.
My real feeling is that what is going on in the TS is something that is
natural in spiritual organizations after they reach a certain age and it will
either manage to work its problems out or it will cease to exist.  But I also
believe that theosophy transcends any organizational hassles and will
continue whether a formal society or societies is around or not.  After all,
we have the internet now.  We don't really need lodges and hqs to communicate
with each other.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:33:19 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:33:19 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618203300_137881217@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

Doss,
As long as john Mead has the stomach for it there is no danger of these lists
being shut down and as alt.theosophy spreads it will be impossible to silence
us.
The net stays free.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:47:01 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:47:01 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618203838_137884639@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma

Alan,
Are you feeling well?  The last place we want to thrash out our personal
differences is a medium read by the entire world.  Lets keep the insults on
the list and try to present our most reasonable face to everyone else.

Chuck the Atrocious MTI, FTSA
Heretic
Troublemaker

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 18 04:10:58 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:10:58 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606180408.XAA29614@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Theosophical Society - FAQ

ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss) wrote:


> Excerpt From: 	The Key to Theosophy - H. P. Blavatsky
> 	        ISBN 0-911500-07-3
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>            THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
>>>>clip>>>>

> THEO:	I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric
>        doctrine,  though  that  is  most  important; I spoke
>        rather of the great need which our successors in  the
>        guidance of  the Society  will have  of unbiased  and
>        clear   judgment.   Every   such   attempt   as   the
>        Theosophical Society has  hitherto ended in  failure,
>        because, sooner or later,  it has degenerated into  a
>        sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and  so
>        lost  by  imperceptible  degrees  that vitality which
>        living truth alone can impart. You must remember that
>        all our members have been bred and born in some creed
>        or  religion,  that  all  are  more  or less of their
>        generation   both   physically   and   mentally,  and
>        consequently that their judgment is but too likely to
>        be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of
>        these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from
>        such inherent bias, or  at least taught to  recognize
>        it instantly and so avoid  being led away by it,  the
>        result can only be that the Society will drift off on
>        to some  sandbank of  thought or  another, and  there
>        remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.

	This is a very strong statement by HPB. Let us see what is happening
in the United States.

1. We now have in place a rule that all new branches are put on
probation. Even though Theosophy was not defined any where in the
objects of TS, the National President (and Board of Directors) are
going to sit in judgement on the activities of the new branch to see
if it activities conform to the Theosophy as defined by them. If not,
the charter would be withdrawn.

2. Even in HPB or AB's time there was no formal certification of
member's on their knowledge of Theosophy. Now there is a certificate
in Theosophy is being issued. The faculty consists of the National
President and a score of PhD's. So after satisfactory indoctrination
you can get the certificate to show that you have learnt Theosophy as
defined by the current administration. I see soon a day will come when
it will become a de facto unwritten requirement to hold any office.

3. New dogma of some inner objectives have been recently invented by
the TSA. How this invention was done is a mystery.

4. The national bylaws were amended to give power to excommunicate
members (ie. cancel their membership even if they are life members)
and seize properties of lodges after cancelling the charter. This is
typical of any organization with a dogmatic religious orientation.

5. National Bylaws were amended in total violation of the state law
and well established democratic procedures and using electioneering
techniques.

6. In recent national elections, retroactive disenfranchisement of
voters was carried out.

7. Secrecy - when some inquiries are made on some important and simple
issues, the normal response was some unsatisfactory answer. No
straight simple open responses.


> ....clip....


________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 18 04:32:08 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:32:08 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606180429.XAA01033@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: H P Blavatsky's Prophesy and J Krishnamuri


 Excerpt From: 	The Key to Theosophy - H. P. Blavatsky
 	        ISBN 0-911500-07-3
 ------------------------------------------------------

            THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
>>>clip>>>

 Enq:	But  how  does  this  bear  on  the  future  of   the
        Theosophical Society?

 THEO:	If the present attempt,  in the form of  our Society,
        succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then
        it will be in  existence as an organized,  living and
        healthy body when the  time comes for the  efforts of
        the  XXth  century.  The  general  condition of men's
        minds and hearts will have been improved and purified
        by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have  said,
        their  prejudices  and  dogmatic  illusions will have
        been, to some extent at least, removed. Not only  so,
        but besides a  large and accessible  literature ready
        to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous
        and *united* body of people ready to welcome the  new
        torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of  men
        prepared for his message, a language ready for him in
        which  to  clothe  the  new  truths  he  brings,   an
        organization awaiting his arrival, which will  remove
        the   merely   mechanical,   material  obstacles  and
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        difficulties from  his path.  Think how  much one, to
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	whom such an opportunity is given, could  accomplish.
        Measure it by  comparison with what  the Theosophical
        Society actually *has* achieved in the last  fourteen
        years,  without   *any*  of   these  advantages   and
        surrounded  by  hosts  of  hindrances which would not
        hamper the  new leader.  Consider all  this, and then
        tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say that  if
        the Theosophical Society  survives and lives  true to
        its  mission,  to  its  original impulses through the
        next hundred years -- tell me, I say, if I go too far
        in  asserting  that  earth  will  be  a heaven in the
        twenty-first century  in comparison  with what  it is
        now!


MKR: In the above, HPB is either correct or wrong. If she is wrong,
then there is no need to further discuss.

If she is correct, then her expected scenario exactly fits J
Krishnamurti. When he started speaking, there was a world wide
organization awaiting his arrival and all merely mechanical, material
obstacles and difficulties were removed from his path. He could
concentrate on his speeches and discussions. Let us also note that
after he started speaking, there was no one with his stature and
charisma. Even today, we do not see any one in the horizon who could
become a charismatic leader.


Just an observation.
________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 18 06:06:41 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:06:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618060641.006bf46c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 05:13 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>There seems to have something about that period that made it impossible for
>people to act except in mobs.  Whoever screamed the loudest got the votes of
>the marching morons with shovels.
>We are more likely to get mad at such people and I think the fragmentation of
>society has done much for freedom.  It makes it very difficult (though not
>yet impossible) for a demogogue to get very far.
>Do you remember the MTV ncsa a few years back.  It had footage of Hitler,
>Mussolini, STalin and the Mad Mullah and then the voice over said that the
>founding fathers came up with a way to keep idiots like that from running the
>country--voting.
>
>Chuck
>
>The diversity, or should I say multiversity which is happening in not only
american Society but European society as well, is the best thing that's
happened in a long time. If you'll notice the "Freemen", "Patriots" and
"Militias" are uniformly Wasp with a sprinkling of White Northern European
Catholics as well.

Now the big problem is to convince the citizens of this country to vote in
very large numbers! Americans have got to comprehend that an unexercised
franchise is one that is soon lost! Sure they could vote after 1933 in
Germany, and they could vote in The Soviet Union but it sure wasn't a
franchise. Most European elections have at least 94% of the voters
exercising their franchise, has America ever had a turn-out that good. In
1996 most eligible voters didn't vote and the result was a minority (21
%)swept Gingrich and his white trash buddies into power.

This by the way is far more important than theosophy!

alexis

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Jun 18 06:15:04 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:15:04 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606180615.XAA27483@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)

Daniel wrote:

>>>  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.


Jerry S. responded in part:

>>Well, I have made my own views very plain over the years,
>>both here and on Peacenet.  My feeling is that the core
>>teachings as given out, are exoteric and simplistic--
>>suitable perhaps for Joe Sixpack, but covering over
>>many deeper and more esoteric meanings.  I am not
>>sure, but I think Eldon agrees with me on this.  My premise,
>>basically, is that reincarnation and karma, for an example
>>of core teachings, are a whole lot more complicated than
>>what we find in the literature.  The problem is that the
>>literature appears to contain step-by-step processes
>>and descriptions, and would seem to have addressed
>>karma and reincarnation in depth.  My view is that this
>>is an illusion.  Karma is *not* rewards and punishments--
>>this is merely how we as human beings perceive it.
>>Karma is causality, the same causality that we find
>>in physics with the exception of its application on other
>>planes rather than just the physical.  And causality (order)
>>has "holes" in it, which I call the Chaos Factor.  Karma
>>also must be seen as both individual and collective,
>>and the collective part works on the mental level under
>>very complicated telepathic stategems that we only
>>barely recognize.  All of the other core teachings are
>>the same way.  They appear to be completely discussed
>>in the literature, but this is simply not so; they are all
>>much more complicated than they appear when put
>>into words.

Daniel replies:
Jerry, you may have given your detailed views outlining why reincarnation
and karma are a whole lot more complicated than what we find in the literature.
Maybe you have given  in great detail why you believe that the core teachings of
theosophy are exoteric and simplistic.  I haven't seen that kind of detail
in what
I have been reading on theos-l for the last year or so.  Maybe I have overlooked
it.  My only point was that many  people on theos-l simply state with little
detail,
with little supporting evidence or reasoning that they disagree with some core
theosophical teaching.

For example, JRC and Eldon have debated the issue of
psychism many times on theos-l and I have come away with very little
from either side.  Has JRC shown the fallacies in the core teachings on
psychism?
Has Eldon defined what the core teaching on psychism is?  What writers has he
based this definition on?  Has JRC given detailed reasons that would
indicate that
there are serious misunderstandings in the core teaching on psychism?  Has JRC
detailed the evidence to show that what HPB or the Masters wrote 100 years
ago is not
valid today or does not cover the whole field, etc. etc?  Has Eldon......

Too many times we just get
simple declarative statements.  But I would like to know how the writer came
up with
that statement.  What is the reasoning behind the statement?  Where is the
evidence
and supporting arguments to buttress the simple declarative statement?

Possibly the core teaching on some particular subject is just flat wrong.
But to just say that the teaching is wrong or exoteric or simplistic and not
to go
on and then show with illustrations and detail how the teaching is wrong,
etc., serves
no useful purpose and leaves me totally in the dark.  I believe this was what
Martin Euser was in part trying to say recently in one of his posts to
Alexis.


Alexis wrote in part:
>Now it seems to me that Daniel Caldwell will accept no "supporting
>arguments" that are not quotes from "Theosophical Literature". These I am
>not willing to use as I believe a good deal of "Theosophical Literature" to
>be on the level of Sunday School Homilies.

Daniel replies:

Alexis' statement about me is way off base.  For example, JRC may have very
good supporting arguments with ample evidence, reasoning, etc., to support his
view as opposed to Eldon's on psychism.  And JRC's evidence, etc may be from
sources OTHER THAN "Theosophical literature"!!!  But my only point was that
if JRC does NOT
detail those arguments and does NOT  list some of the evidence and does NOT
show his line of reasoning, etc.
then I, at least, will not be in a very good position to understand his
contentions concerning the
theosophical view on psychism.

Of course, no one is obliged to offer such details, etc.  But it is hard to
have a really
serious discussion without such indepth explorations.


"WHERE'S THE BEEF?  SO FAR I'VE ONLY SEEN THE BUNS AND A LITTLE LETTUCE...."

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 18 06:31:38 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:31:38 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618063138.006cddd8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)

At 06:14 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>

>
>	Alexis: Thanks for your comments. FYI, I have had a copy to
>Tillett's book for several years. I have no reason yet to change my mind
>about the good CWL and AB have done for TS and countless members of TS,
>including myself.
>
>	...MKRamadoss
>
>
>>
>Doss: In view of your response, I have a serious question to ask you. I was
first attracted to theosophy for two reasons. First: My relationship to HPB
made me curious about what she did. Second: I found a couple of books by CWL
("The Masters and The Path" and 'The Inner Side of Things". The result was I
became a theosophist and an active one. But I became very disillusioned with
the movement when I discovered that CWL was anything but what he said he
was. It is my view that The Theosophical Society (Adyar) as it exists today
is what CWL made it and really has very little to do with HPB. I think that,
in the minds of most people, CWL is totally discredited.

Now you say that CWL and AB have done much good for the TS and for countless
members of the TS including yourself. Well only you know what is best for
you, but I must ask this: The TS is a tiny and almost completely irrelevant
group in the world today. I think it can fairly be said that much of the
blame for this obscurity lies with CWL and AB. One cannot speak accurately
of "countless members" because the TS (since ther Krishnamurti incident) has
not had sufficient members for "countless" to be appropriate. I freely admit
that CWL's writings have interested many, many people in contacting
Theosophy, BUT how many of those people, eventually, as I was, became
disillusioned and left the society? I didn't ever stop being a theosophist
though I resigned for a time from the TSA. There is a lot of evidence, much
of it hard to ignore completely, that says that CWL was not a good and
decent person and that he was, moreover, a very untruthful one. I humbly
submit to you that good can not come out of bad.

You are a great "fan" of Krishnamurti, I am not, though I admire him in
certain ways for his honesty and integrity. But I feel that his life, and
his potential were irrevocably harmed by CWl's intervention in his life at
such an early age. What would and could Krishnamurti have accomplished had
he come to realize his FULL potential in the milieu which was proper for
him? It's pretty clear that Krishnamurti intensely disliked CWL, would his
life not have been better and happier had he no reason for such dislike?

Madame Blavatsky begged and pleaded during the last days of her life, for
the Society not to idolize either herself of the Adepts. More than anyone
else, CWL is responsible for doing just that. And that I believe is entirely
reprehensible.

You are a good man Doss, in every sense of the term, and I admire your
honesty and perseverance, but this is my opinion and I hope you won't be
offended by my honesty in stating it so clearly.

alexis dolgorukii
>

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Tue Jun 18 06:43:22 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:43:22 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606180643.XAA11045@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Alternatives?  A comment or two to A.B.



Daniel wrote:
>>I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in
support
>>of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>>

Alan replied in part:
>Do you not think this approach is more than simplistic?  Might it not
>simply be possible that in certain areas at least, "core" theosophy is
>*wrong*?  Under such a circumstance, there is not necessarily an
>alternative.


Daniel replies:
Yes, of course, a certain area of core theosophy may be wrong.  And, yes,
there may not be an alternative view.

BUT IN SUCH A CASE, all that I am suggesting, is that the person, who says
such & such teaching
is wrong, allow the rest of us ACCESS to his reasoning, etc.  which lead to
the conclusion,
"This is wrong."   In other words, what is his conclusion based upon?  How
did he arrive at that
conclusion?  etc.

For example, I believe
Alexis has said something to the effect that he believes HPB wrote most if
not all of the Mahatma
Letters.   I have no idea what Alexis has based this conclusion on or for
that matter exactly
what he really means by such a statement.  We have just a declaration by
Alexis. Fine and good.
But if I am interested enough in that statement by Alexis to
ASK MYSELF whether his statement is true or not, I have no idea how he
arrived at such a
conclusion....

Written in haste,

Daniel

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 18 06:56:59 1996
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:56:59 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618065659.006cce50@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

At 09:21 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:

Alan: I really like the answer you make to Daniel. That makes three of us
who have responded to his plaint. JRC, you, and I, and I think Jerry
Scheuler did too. So then shall we await his response? As JRC rightly
observes: people complain about a lack of serious discussion but when
someone tries to start one, they are completely ignored. He's right. But
let's see if it can change.

alexis dolgorukii

In message <199606170102.SAA01826@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky
>Foundation  writes
>>I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in
support
>>of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>>
>>Daniel
>
>Do you not think this approach is more than simplistic?  Might it not
>simply be possible that in certain areas at least, "core" theosophy is
>*wrong*?  Under such a circumstance, there is not necessarily an
>alternative.  Consider the statement, "Alan Bain has red hair."  Not
>only is this incorrect, but it has always been incorrect.  This Alan
>Bain, anyway, has gone from blond to mouse to greyish-white.  IOW, the
>statement is false.  Maybe one could argue that the "alternative" is the
>*current* truth regarding the color of Alan's hair.  But supposing the
>statement is, "Alan Bain has three ears."  This is simply untrue, and to
>say that the alternative is two ears is not going to shake the world.
>
>Take the argument a stage further: "Alan is a reincarnation of an
>ancient Egyptian slave."  This presupposes that some form of
>reincarnation is a fact.  Here are some alternatives:
>
>1. Alan is not a reincarnation of an Egyptian slave.
>2. Reincarnation is false.
>3. Reincarnation is true, but 1. above is false.
>4. Reincarnation is true, but not in the manner presented in "core"
>theosophical writings.
>
>A alternative model of reincarnation for 4. could be offered, but could
>no more be validated by any scientific approach than the existing
>"theosophical" model (which owes, *IMO*, much to the vivid imagination
>of C.W.Leadbeater which led Ernest Wood to become sceptical about the
>"Lives" of Alcyone and others.
>
>Appeals to "The Masters" are only valid if
>
>1. The "Masters" are or were real living beings.
>2. They actually said and wrote the words attributed to them.
>3. If 1. and 2. are true, did they give facts or opinions, and if so,
>how might these be verified today?
>
>For example, CWL was completely wrong about life on Mars. His other
>clairvoyant experiences may have been more accurate, or may not, but how
>likely is it that *anyone's* clairvoyant experiences are 100% accurate?
>
>To requote the opening above,
>
>> We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>>point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>But, if anyone is interested in other models, I offer for deep thought a
>quote from "The Company of Avalon" by Frederick Bligh Bond, a British
>psychic researcher who left the T.S. in 1909 along with Sinnet, Mead,
>Kingsland and others:
>
>[From ~The Company of Avalon~ by F. Bligh Bond, published by Basil
>Blackwell of Broad Street, Oxford (England) in 1924.  The book is an
>account of some of the results of automatic writing received during
>psychic research into the foundations of Glastonbury Abbey in Somerset,
>England.]
>
>"In the script of J.A., published under the title The Return of
>Johannes, the following significant passages occur. After stating that
>to the "Company " of the brethren whose memories are communicated the
>Abbey still stands perfect as it was in its prime, or rather, as it was
>in the minds of those who conceived its design, we are led to infer that
>their united memory can reproduce its entire history. By clothing
>themselves in the garment of earth-recollection they can recall its
>history as one continuous whole.
>
>'Each one, in his remembrance, is the link which makes for us all the
>faire story of Glaston as one continuous whole. So I, being linked in
>the spirit with Eawulf who comes from out the Danes in olden time, see
>with his eyes, hear with his ears, and live in mine own spiritual life
>the life that he lived in his day.... So does Eawulf, and so does Abbot
>Kent who loved the Mere and there took his pleasaunce, goe with me and
>in me, and I in him to see the sunset imaged in the waters and hear the
>tide ycoming in the sedges of Cock Lake ere it reached me over dear
>Mere. So being united and yet separate - united in sympathy and yet
>separate in that he is hym and I, Johannes - soe, I say, do we have and
>live a hundred lives where once we lived but one. Thus are we. Is it not
>the Paradise of Saints, and not the Purgatory of Sinners, in which we
>all dwell and praise and rejoice as one?'"
>
>Text scanned and posted by Alan Bain
>---------
>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 Jun 18 18:13:55 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:13:55 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618181355.006d06bc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)

At 02:18 AM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>"WHERE'S THE BEEF?  SO FAR I'VE ONLY SEEN THE BUNS AND A LITTLE LETTUCE...."
>
>
>The trouble is "how can you have beef with a bunch of vegetarians? 

But seriously, I think Daniel has really gone off base here. I've read JRC's
many articles on the subject and they are terribly complete with supporting
arguments, though they are usually HIS OWN ARGUMENTS! I think the basic
problem that those of us who see theosophy as a process rather than as a
Religion, have is that as we don't accept the presence of valid "core
teachings" we don't feel either a need or a reason to refer to them and
instead refer to what we believe to be more important.

When I say "I don't believe in Reincarnation as Theosophy teaches it", I
really do believe that the people on this list are sufficiently well
informed on the subject so that I do not have to "retell twice-told tales".
Why bore people who will only remark "O.K. I already know that."? I try, and
regularly have, in discussions with Dr. Bain, explained where my ideas
differ from orthodox theosophical reincarnation. I really doubt if there's
anyone on this list who is not already familiar with the orthodox version.
Equally when I, or JRC, or Jerry S., or Alan Bain, or Chuck Cosimano say "I
don't believe in Karma as Theosophy defines it", I really believe it is
reasonable and proper, in the context that is this list, to make the
assumption that everyone who might read our words knows what that definition
is. This is not a forum for new comers to theosophy.

As I have said before and will doubtless be forced to say many times more:
Daniel is far too rigidly academic-scholastic in his approach to life. This
is a "spare time discussion group" we are not candidates for Doctorates
facing some Doctoral Committee and there's really no need for us to prepare
our messages as if we were.


alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 18 18:39:26 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:39:26 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618183926.006da8fc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Alternatives?  A comment or two to A.B.

At 02:49 AM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>

>
>For example, I believe
>Alexis has said something to the effect that he believes HPB wrote most if
>not all of the Mahatma
>Letters.   I have no idea what Alexis has based this conclusion on or for
>that matter exactly
>what he really means by such a statement.  We have just a declaration by
>Alexis. Fine and good.
>But if I am interested enough in that statement by Alexis to
>ASK MYSELF whether his statement is true or not, I have no idea how he
>arrived at such a
>conclusion....
>
>Written in haste,
>
>Daniel
>
>
>Daniel my friend, I really believe you would rather not know how I "arrived
at such a conclusion", so I will simply say that much of it was, in part, an
intuitive reaction to the material which I read. I assume you won't consider
simple intuition to be too "Third Object". Now, you say you have no idea
what I mean by the statement that "HPB wrote most if not all of the Mahatmas
Letters". I mean exactly what I said. The letters were the product of HPB's
intelligence, which to me is a "committee intelligence" as she was a Tulku,
and they were precipitated (apported) to their destinations by HPB herself.
I think she did this in an effort to "shore up" an authority she felt was
insufficient to convince people of things she wanted to convince them of. I
can certainly give one concrete non-intuitional reason for my thought and
that is: I own, and have read and re-read "The Mahatma Letters to
A.P.Sinnett" and the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P.Sinnett" (both in the
original editions) and the writer, IMO, would appear to be largely the same
person in both cases.

Now, lest you think I am accusing HPB of fraud, I am NOT. I also believe
that HPB felt, that as a Tulku or Channel she was entitled to produce
evidence of a contact which she believed was very real indeed. I think she
was completely mistaken in this procedure as it has clearly caused more
problems than it solved. Had there been no "Mahatma Letters" there would
have been no SPR Report, had she not spent so much time doing the "parlor
tricks" (with which she herself was far too fascinated) and more time
clarifying her message, she and theosophy would be far better off today.

The poor old woman, at the end of her life, begged and pleaded that
theosophy NOT take the turn it has clearly and fatally taken. She said
clearly that if Theosophy turns into a Religion (and Doss has recently
posted her statement so there's no need to beat dead horses),in other words,
that if it accepts  "Core Doctrines" and treats them as if they were dogma,
then Theosophy is doomed. And so actually, all that JRC, Jerry S., Alan
Bain, Chuck Cosimano, and I are doing is agreeing with HPB and trying to
give theosophy a new lease on life.

One thing I don't understand is how the orthodoxy in Theosophy can treat
almost every word of HPB's as Doctrine but then go on to totally ignore her
warnings. I will also say, that, based upon my readings on the subject, THE
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (as clearly opposed to theosophy) is about 95% CWL/AB
and 5% HPB and that is a very great shame.

alexis dolgorukii

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 18 18:44:37 1996
Date: 18 Jun 96 14:44:37 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Ruminations
Message-Id: <960618184437_76400.1474_HHL42-1@CompuServe.COM>

>Punishing the new born for someone elses
>fault is the hight of unfairness

	Alexis, I agree.  It is a well-known fact
in animal training that unless the animal knows
what the punishment is for (i.e., it must be immediate
and consistent) it can't learn.  Humans work much
the same way.  When punishment is immediate
and consistent it works well as a learning tool.
When punishment is neither immediate nor
consistent, pathology develops as in the case
of the borderline personality disorder.  So, if
karma really works as the core teachings say it
does, then we are all pathological disfunctional
victims of abuse.  Fortunately for us, karma does
not work that way.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 18 18:44:39 1996
Date: 18 Jun 96 14:44:39 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Meditation & Rituals
Message-Id: <960618184439_76400.1474_HHL42-2@CompuServe.COM>

>Some consider Meditation is good for the person as well as for everyone.
>If this is true, why not meditation is done 8 hours a day or even more.
>More meditation better it is.

	Doss, more meditation is not better.  Its quality we need,
not quantity.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 18 18:44:51 1996
Date: 18 Jun 96 14:44:51 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (to Dan)
Message-Id: <960618184450_76400.1474_HHL42-4@CompuServe.COM>

Some responses to Dan:

>For example, JRC and Eldon have debated the issue of
>psychism many times on theos-l and I have come away with very little
>from either side.  Has JRC shown the fallacies in the core teachings on
>psychism?
	Well, he has for me (but then, I already agreed with him
to begin with).

>Has Eldon defined what the core teaching on psychism is?
	Yes.  It is wrong, evil, dangerous, and not to be used.

>What writers has he based this definition on?
	Judge and G de P.  HPB practiced it herself.  She
wanted it out of the TSs, but otherwise had little against it.

>Has JRC given detailed reasons that would indicate that
>there are serious misunderstandings in the core teaching on
psychism?
	Yes.  And I have too.  For example, the core teachings
overdramatize the dangers of psychism.  The chief danger is
that the information obtained may be wrong (like cities on Mars).
Big deal!  I have, several times now, pointed out a way around
this problem--if the information obtained has little personal
meaning to you, forget it.  If it has a lot of personal meaning
to you, then it should be taken as valid.  Psychism is a very
personal thing.

>Has JRC detailed the evidence to show that what HPB or the
>Masters wrote 100 years ago is not
>valid today or does not cover the whole field, etc. etc?
	I think he has.  I have also said many times that what
HPB and her Adepts wrote is but the tip of an iceberg, all
exoteric and intellectual.  This does not mean that it is wrong,
but rather not the whole story.  Let me give you just one simple
example--mystical experience.  Now, a mystical experience is
what the east calls samadhi, and HPB mentions it, but makes
no attempt to detail it at all.  She glosses over it, and suggests
that only the highest Adepts can attain it.   It is, after all, one of
the chief goals of Raja Yoga, which HPB condoned for our use.
Well, I just read an essay by three transpersonal psychologists
(David Lukoff, Francis G. Lu, and robert Turner "Diagnosis: A
Transpersonal Clinical Approach to religious and Spiritual
Problems") in which they mention a study that found that from
30 to 40 percent of all Americans have had a mystical experience.
They conclude that these statistics are  "suggesting that these
are normal rather than pathological phenomena."  The vast
majority of these are reluctant to admit it, fearing
adverse reaction from friends and family.  In fact, I recall
Jane Huston (spelling ??) saying in a recent Quest article
that she too had a mystical experience which frightened
her because she didn't understand it.
	The same can be said for near death experiences
or NDE.  The same essay says that it is estimated that one-
third of all people who are close to dying have NDEs that
significantly change their lives.  That is a lot of people.  One
of the things that transpersonal psychology is doing is
helping these people to understand their experiences.
Why can't theosophy help?
	So, the statistics
that HPB was paying with a hundred years ago, no longer
applies, Dan.  The same can be said for her GV model
where she confines herself to the lower 4 planes and 7
globes, because she felt the higher planes were too
difficult for people to understand.  I submit that this is
not the case today.

>Too many times we just get
>simple declarative statements.  But I would like to
>know how the writer came up with that statement.
	For my part, experience as well as study
in area areas such as Tibetan Buddhism and Magic.
As far as my saying that karma is complicated; this
is a fallout from a realization that we are in constant
telepathic communication, and under karmic
interaction, with every other human monad in this
human lifewave on Globe D--billions of monads.
The possibilites for increase or decrease of our
individual and collective karmic burdens are staggering.

>"WHERE'S THE BEEF?  SO FAR I'VE ONLY SEEN THE BUNS
>AND A LITTLE LETTUCE...."
	Beef comes from direct experience.  Only buns
and lettuce can be put into words.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 18 18:44:42 1996
Date: 18 Jun 96 14:44:42 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Core Teachings
Message-Id: <960618184442_76400.1474_HHL42-3@CompuServe.COM>

Alexis:
>Now it seems to me that Daniel Caldwell will accept no "supporting
>arguments" that are not quotes from "Theosophical Literature". These I am
>not willing to use as I believe a good deal of "Theosophical Literature" to
>be on the level of Sunday School Homilies.
	You are obviously referring to karma as a dispenser of
rewards and punishments.  I agree.  There is no difference at all
between karma defined this way, and God writing good and bad
marks after our name in his Book.  Another homily is the notion
of the Akashic Records that record everything done on Earth, and
all we need do is review the Records to find what really happened.
This is simplistic garbage given out for children.  It also allows
for a special priviledged class of "priests" who can read those
Records.  Karma and the Akashic Records are a whole lot more
complicated than the literature would have us believe.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 18 21:37:59 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:37:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606182137.XAA15529@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)


>Alexis>Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.
>
>Alexis: it's quite possible. However, I don't equate criticism on
>        ideas and perceptions with flaming someone.
>	Besides all of this I would like to see people who are
> 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
>	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
>	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.
>
>Martin
>
>
>Martin:

A>You don't seem to be listening to a word I'm saying. That is a surprise to
me, because you say you're a psychologist, and psychologists are supposed to
be professional "listeners". At least that was the very first thin I was
taught when I studied the subject a Columbia University.


Alexis: I posted this reply *before* I read your and Alan's comments
in the theos-l digest I received just after sending this reply.
There's a time-lag of approx. 24 hours (or more) between my response
and your original posting. During that time you have posted another
message which I haven't be able to read due to delay in reception
of the theos-l digest. This is an important factor to keep in mind.


A>The problem is that
we don't possess anywhere near the same definition of "criticism". I will
gladly accept "strong disagreement", but "criticism" is the wrong word to
use.

Alexis: as Alan suggested I have the old-fashioned connotation of the word
criticism in mind, also due to the fact that the almost similar Dutch
word for 'criticism' (kritiek, kritizeren) has not the same negative
connotation as it has in modern American English. I will use the word
'disagreement' to indicate differences of opinion from now on. That will
be helpful to avoid misunderstandings. Believe me, I've better things to do
than criticizing people (in the negative sense of that word).



A>Now, I am far more than totally "dissatisfied" with "Core Theosophy" in
every way. In fact I totally reject it as valid. This I believe you already
know.

Yes, I know that. And I would like to see you and others present
viable alternatives, a consistent set of ideas/experiences.
(maybe on alt.theosophy ?)


A> In the interim I think it an ideal
place for small "t" theosophists and Orthodox Theosophists who are
literalists when it comes to the so called "Core Doctrines" to engage in
some actual theosophical work and compare their perceptions of theosophy.
But, you need to know that these discussions cannot be perceptive if
everything something like me says is met with "HPB says" or "The Masters
said". People like me regard theosophy as a process, Literalist Theosophists
appear to regard Theosophy as a "Religion".


Alexis: I would not exactly count myself as an orthodox literalist,
that is too easy a label to put on somebody. I'm searching for truth,
but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.


A>For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?

Alexis: I objected to your 'roll-of-the-dice' view of things. I asked
you where the idea of justice fits in to which you responded that you
don't believe in (universal) justice. It's still not clear to me, however,
what you *do* believe in regarding justice. But this has nothing to do
with amicable discussions. I always presume that people want amicable
discussions. I was and still am asking, however, for supportive
arguments from your side regarding your views on theosophy.


A>This is something which we all have to think about, if we are going to end
up with anything but wreckage where the Theosophical society was, we are
going to have to communicate peaceably, while still maintaining our
differences What we have to accept is this: You have every right to your
religious approach to Theosophy, and I have an equally strong right to my
agnostic approach to theosophy.

With hand of friendship out:

alexis dolgorukii


Hand accepted and shaken ,

Martin



P.S. I will switch my attention to alt.theosophy from now on.
You can find me there, where I will occasionally drop by.
There are some matters I have to pay attention to and I have to
cut down on time spend on the electronic fora for this moment.
Suggestion: maybe you can attract some more subscribers to alt.theosophy
by posting a message to some newsgroups, together with the reading
and posting instructions for those who can't access this group locally
(or Chuck could do that?)






From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 18 21:52:41 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:52:41 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606182150.QAA16787@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Mail Order Theosophy

Hi

The current trend is that there are more un attached members than
members attached to lodges, branches and study centers. If this trend
continues, it is very likely that more and more of the lodges and
branches will get shut down and TSA can sell the property and take
over the assets and there will be no incentive to restart any of these
lodges or branches or study centers. The logical conclusion is that
finally we will have most members as members at large and business
transacted via mail order. Much different than what was envisioned by
the Founders.

Can anyone tell me why this scenario is not likely?



________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:10:40 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:10:40 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618200958_137864693@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma

Jerry,
Your ideas are all perfect, but I fear that none of them will see the light
of day in the TSA's present state.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:31:09 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:31:09 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618202936_137878247@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Alex,
If you can figure out a way to get people to vote you will qualify for
adeptship in anyone's book.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:41:29 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:41:29 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960618203625_137883174@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Doss,
The idea of all members-at-large was something the founders never saw, but
there was no way they could in that time.  With our means of communication,
lodges are an interesting anachronism, a leftover from the days of horses and
buggies.
It would be a shame to lose the olcott property, but I have a feeling that
that will not happen.  The presence of a national hq site has too many
practical advantages.

Chuck
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 18 23:27:43 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:27:43 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Alternatives?  A comment or two to A.B.
In-Reply-To: <199606180643.XAA11045@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606180643.XAA11045@web.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky
Foundation  writes
>But if I am interested enough in that statement by Alexis to
>ASK MYSELF whether his statement is true or not, I have no idea how he
>arrived at such a
>conclusion....
>
>Written in haste,
>
>Daniel

Obviously.  I said a number of other things in my post and offered some
types of example.  Concerning what Alexis may have said, well, you have
to try to ask Alexis.  I suggest that you might get somewhere (might) if
you are *specific* - ie., take a leaf from your own book, so to speak.

For instance: give an *example* of a *clear* aspect of the teaching
about which ther emay be dispute, and which you know Alexis sees
differently.  Having done this, *then* ask him how he reaches a
different point of view, and his reasoning behind his opinion.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 18 23:13:14 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:13:14 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <9606180336.AA23746@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606180336.AA23746@alpinet.net>, Bjorn Roxendal
 writes
>At 09:21 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>For example, CWL was completely wrong about life on Mars.
>
>What did he say about life on Mars? Maybe he was only partially wrong.

I have this on file. He was 100% wrong, and later editions of the book
it was in have had it removed by the theosophical leaders without
telling anyone that they are buying an abridged version.

I will e-mail it to you.
>
>>how
>>likely is it that *anyone's* clairvoyant experiences are 100% accurate?
>
>100% unlikely.

Correct.  Go to the top of the class! :-)
>
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 18 15:19:46 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:19:46 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: <$Nv$kLASksxxEwyS@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <9606172150.AA20053@toto.csustan.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606172150.AA20053@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 writes
>2. The complete dissociation of the TS from the Liberal Catholic
>Church and Co-Masonry.  The relationship of the TS to these
>organizations should be put on the same bases that we have with
>any other religion or fraternal organization.
>

Jerry - I dunno about the US, but in the UK the link between these three
is tenuous to say the least.  As a "lapsed" co-mason I know that in my
own CM lodge only 2 others were also members of the TS, and only one was
active.  In the LCC in this country, some clergy are also members of the
other two, but the TS does not seem to take any notice of their non-TS
affiliations in any relevant ways.

Neither the LCC not the Co-masons here seem to take any notice of the TS
whatsoever - they have in effect become separate organisations.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 18 15:23:57 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:23:57 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Core Teachings?
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
"m.k. ramadoss"  writes
>       Alexis: Thanks for your comments. FYI, I have had a copy to
>Tillett's book for several years. I have no reason yet to change my mind
>about the good CWL and AB have done for TS and countless members of TS,
>including myself.
>
>       ...MKRamadoss
>
In Anglican/Catholic theology, the effectiveness of the sacrament does
not depend on the worthiness of the minister.

Amend to read, "In Anglican/Catholic/Theosophical theology ..."

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From akikorho@raita.oulu.fi Tue Jun 18 14:49:51 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:49:51 +0300 (EDT)
From: Aki Korhonen 
Subject: 1996 SCHEDULE OF THE KREIVILA, FINLAND
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

1996 SHEDULE OF THE KREIVIL=C4, FINLAND.

The "Kreivila" is a beautiful and historical mansion at the southern=20
Finland.  There is a lot of forests, a lake, a lake-sauna and a peaceful=20
atmosphere. The place is used for Theosophical courses and for private=20
weekends. Here is a summer program if some of You is planning to visit=20
Finland. Welcome!


21.6-28.6=09THE SUMMER COURSE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF FINLAND
=09=09"MAN AS A PART OF THE NATURE", Philosopher Henryk Skolimowsky
=09=09, Poland and The Chairman of TS-Europe, Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu,
=09=09 France

28.6-1.7=09FIGURE-ART-THERAPY, Sinikka Sivonen

5.7-11.7.=09TAIJI-COURSE, Annikki Arponen

8.7-12.7.=09WHAT IS BEHIND MEANING?, Timo Myllykangas

19.7-21.7=09ASTROLOGY-WEEKEND, Marja-Liisa Niemi-Mattila

21.7-23.7=09ASTROLOGY-, Marja-Liisa Niemi-Mattila

26.7.-28.7=09DAYS FOR SILENCE, FREE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Yrjo Kumila

5.8.-11.8.=09PRANAYAMA COURSE, G.Gautama, India

9.8.-16.8.=09PRANAYAMA COURSE FOR BEGINNERS, G. Gautama, India

16.8.-18.8.=09"HUMAN RELATIONS & SPIRITUALITY", Kiviaho

23.8.-25.8.=09"FROM SUMMER TO AUTNUM"-WEEKEND, TS-Finland

6.9-8.9.=09THEOSOPHICAL WEEKEND, Blavatsky Lodge, Helsinki.

19.9.-22.9.=09"MAN- A BRIDE OVER MATTER AND SPIRIT", Yrj=F6 Kumila.

More information from Taimi Savolainen int+358-0-801 7611 or KREIVILA
int+358-16-435 1414.

KREIVILA
KREIVILANTIE 219, 31110 MATKU, FINLAND.

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 19 07:48:35 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:48:35 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619074835.006d3958@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma

At 05:49 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Alexis:
>
>thanks for the nice words about me. Afterall we all can and do have widely
>differing opinions on a lot of things. The only thing that unites all of us
>are the three objects of the TS. If we all fight with each other and all of
>us go away, there are a lot of people who I think will rejoice at the
>prospect of these lists shut down. This is the only forum left to discuss
>openly all the issues which each one of us think is very relevant to keep
>the TS from self-destruction (it may continue as a mailorder outfit for a
>long time), but not as a vibrant living open unsecret organization that HPB
>and the Founders dreamed of. So let not our differences discourage our
>common commitment. If after all our efforts, we see the TS as we know it go
>down the tube, then it is on account of forces generated by itself and not
>from any outside entity.
>
>Let us unite and see what we can do to open the eyes of the bureaucrats.
>
>
>MK Ramadoss
>______________________________________________________________________
>******** Peace to all living beings*****************
>
>         M K Ramadoss
>
>
>Doss: I agree 100% with every word you just said. Let us unite and see what
we can do, that certainly doesn't mean we can't have disagreements. But we
all have to remember that our disagreements exist in direct proportion to
our commitment to theosophy/Theosophy and that's what counts.

alexis dolgorukii

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 19 20:35:10 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:35:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad karma
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960619074835.006d3958@pop.slip.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote:

> At 05:49 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >Alexis:
> >
> >thanks for the nice words about me. Afterall we all can and do have widely
> >differing opinions on a lot of things. The only thing that unites all of us
> >are the three objects of the TS. If we all fight with each other and all of
> >us go away, there are a lot of people who I think will rejoice at the
> >prospect of these lists shut down. This is the only forum left to discuss
> >openly all the issues which each one of us think is very relevant to keep
> >the TS from self-destruction (it may continue as a mailorder outfit for a
> >long time), but not as a vibrant living open unsecret organization that HPB
> >and the Founders dreamed of. So let not our differences discourage our
> >common commitment. If after all our efforts, we see the TS as we know it go
> >down the tube, then it is on account of forces generated by itself and not
> >from any outside entity.
> >
> >Let us unite and see what we can do to open the eyes of the bureaucrats.
> >
> >
> >MK Ramadoss
> >______________________________________________________________________
> >******** Peace to all living beings*****************
> >
> >         M K Ramadoss
> >
> >
> >Doss: I agree 100% with every word you just said. Let us unite and see what
> we can do, that certainly doesn't mean we can't have disagreements. But we
> all have to remember that our disagreements exist in direct proportion to
> our commitment to theosophy/Theosophy and that's what counts.
>
> alexis dolgorukii
>

Agreed.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed Jun 19 21:47:40 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:47:40 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31C8757C.5875@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alan wrote:
>
> In message <199606180312.XAA22255@katie.vnet.net>, "John E. Mead"
>  writes
> >what can we do to resolve our differences in this very local medium?
> >
> >
> >peace -
> >
> >john e. mead
>
> We could start by agreeing to try to be polite to each other at all
> times, not to employ personal pejorative remarks, even if the apparent
> facts are unpalatable to us individually.  Where there is dispute, then
> let those who bring up the dispute also bring up the *explained* reasons
> for disputing whatever the question is.snip.........
Alan
> ---------
> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
> Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
> TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
> http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

I am still lurking around the fringe and now that the 'bad karma' has spread
to here too, I will stick my neck out again.
I agree with what Alan says to a point as there are a few of us who left
theos-l because of the lack of brotherhood in general.
I would like to ask how many of the unhappy dissidents are active members of
a Lodge? From what I gathered not many. What make you think that the powers
that be are going to take any notice of all your fist shaking and finger
pointing? It is easier to do that than to find a constructive alternative.
You have already established your presence on the Internet which Adyar etc
have not. What are you doing with it except squabble and turn off anyone who
may be looking for theosophy as a meaningful way of life. You have created TI
but I have not seen it used to give theosophy a real presence in cyberspace.
Forget Adyar and all the negative connotations you have covered it with and
start something new. Give the wandering seeker a place to find good articles
to read, brotherliness(read sisterliness too) to respond to and create a
place of welcome. I decided not to continue with the steady daily diet of
gloom and negativity that theos-l offered. I was looking for theosophy when I
joined and for 8 months I kept hoping that the little bits that appeared
would increase but it didn't happen so sadly I left.
Theos-l doesn't have to be like that. It can be anything the participants
make it. If you all want it to be a non event then that's what it will be and
I am sure the powers that be won't shed any tears over the failure of TI to
make an impact in the world at large.
TS can only be changed from within by members dedicated to a vision of a
different way of doing things. Shouting at Radha over the Internet seems to
me to be doomed to failure as she may not even be listening. So much energy
wasted when it could be turned to a constructive use for furthering theosophy
on the Internet.
We are lucky here in NZ that we have 14 Lodges and 1663 members and a
national body that believes that the Lodges are TSNZ. As president of
Wanganui Lodge, I drive 450 kms each way to Auckland four times a year to
attend the Exec meetings along with the rest of the presidents who are able
to make it. Our travel expenses are paid by HQ so to make sure that all
decisions are approved by all Lodge representatives. Some have to come a lot
further than I do. We conduct our business on Sat afternoon and on Sun
morning we discuss Lodge problems and how we may help each other to function
more effectively. We all know each other fairly well so noone is too shy to
say what is on their mind. The National President cannot make any real
decision without the ok from the exec meetings so we all know what is going
on. Some of us may not approve of everything but the majority vote is
accepted.
Therefore you see not all TS happennings are negative and I realise that NZ
is a different setting than USA.
After all that I shall take myself and my flu virus back to bed and hope my
computer won't say nasty things to me next time I log in to see who is
talking.
Bee

From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Jun 19 22:43:51 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 18:43:51 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606192349.TAA15578@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma

>ABee,

What you describe that could be done with theos-l is exactly what I hoped
would be done. I hoped we'd discuss theosophical ideas to live by. I think
the closest we ever came to it, in the 1 1/2 years I've been part of it was
several weeks long of talking about Karma. Everyone wa voicing ideas,
productive, & I for one learned something about different points of view.
Any other time, when someone started to talk about something useful,
somebody else would start a fight, and so nobody ever learned anything more
at all, except entrench themselves more deeply in whatever point of view
they held in the first place. Not very productive, ceertainly not
interesting, and I've given up.

Liesel

        Your video came yesterday. I've been in bed most of the time &
haven't as yet had a chance to look at it. Thanks for sending it.

LFD
.......................................................................



lan wrote:
>>
>> In message <199606180312.XAA22255@katie.vnet.net>, "John E. Mead"
>>  writes
>> >what can we do to resolve our differences in this very local medium?
>> >
>> >
>> >peace -
>> >
>> >john e. mead
>>
>> We could start by agreeing to try to be polite to each other at all
>> times, not to employ personal pejorative remarks, even if the apparent
>> facts are unpalatable to us individually.  Where there is dispute, then
>> let those who bring up the dispute also bring up the *explained* reasons
>> for disputing whatever the question is.snip.........
>Alan
>> ---------
>> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>> Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>> TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>> http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>I am still lurking around the fringe and now that the 'bad karma' has spread
>to here too, I will stick my neck out again.
>I agree with what Alan says to a point as there are a few of us who left
>theos-l because of the lack of brotherhood in general.
>I would like to ask how many of the unhappy dissidents are active members of
>a Lodge? From what I gathered not many. What make you think that the powers
>that be are going to take any notice of all your fist shaking and finger
>pointing? It is easier to do that than to find a constructive alternative.
>You have already established your presence on the Internet which Adyar etc
>have not. What are you doing with it except squabble and turn off anyone who
>may be looking for theosophy as a meaningful way of life. You have created TI
>but I have not seen it used to give theosophy a real presence in cyberspace.
>Forget Adyar and all the negative connotations you have covered it with and
>start something new. Give the wandering seeker a place to find good articles
>to read, brotherliness(read sisterliness too) to respond to and create a
>place of welcome. I decided not to continue with the steady daily diet of
>gloom and negativity that theos-l offered. I was looking for theosophy when I
>joined and for 8 months I kept hoping that the little bits that appeared
>would increase but it didn't happen so sadly I left.
>Theos-l doesn't have to be like that. It can be anything the participants
>make it. If you all want it to be a non event then that's what it will be and
>I am sure the powers that be won't shed any tears over the failure of TI to
>make an impact in the world at large.
>TS can only be changed from within by members dedicated to a vision of a
>different way of doing things. Shouting at Radha over the Internet seems to
>me to be doomed to failure as she may not even be listening. So much energy
>wasted when it could be turned to a constructive use for furthering theosophy
>on the Internet.
>We are lucky here in NZ that we have 14 Lodges and 1663 members and a
>national body that believes that the Lodges are TSNZ. As president of
>Wanganui Lodge, I drive 450 kms each way to Auckland four times a year to
>attend the Exec meetings along with the rest of the presidents who are able
>to make it. Our travel expenses are paid by HQ so to make sure that all
>decisions are approved by all Lodge representatives. Some have to come a lot
>further than I do. We conduct our business on Sat afternoon and on Sun
>morning we discuss Lodge problems and how we may help each other to function
>more effectively. We all know each other fairly well so noone is too shy to
>say what is on their mind. The National President cannot make any real
>decision without the ok from the exec meetings so we all know what is going
>on. Some of us may not approve of everything but the majority vote is
>accepted.
>Therefore you see not all TS happennings are negative and I realise that NZ
>is a different setting than USA.
>After all that I shall take myself and my flu virus back to bed and hope my
>computer won't say nasty things to me next time I log in to see who is
>talking.
>Bee
>
>
>

From jem@vnet.net Thu Jun 20 03:06:54 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John E. Mead" 
Message-Id: <199606200306.XAA26220@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma

hi -

we've  had a few constructive suggestions, and some comments which
prefer to ignore the issue.

the people who compain the loudest about the political
junk should/would (?) welcome the oppurtunity to explain how to
fix the problems?  or admit it is hopeless??

1. throw the organization(s) away

or

2. find a way to fix it/them.


it seemed option 2 was best.   the question is how.


peace -

john e. mead

p.s. i have alot of pepcid around the house.   sigh  :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------
From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 20 03:41:11 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:41:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <199606200306.XAA26220@katie.vnet.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

John:

At some point when all the fixing ideas have been collected, it may be a
good idea to get them communicated to Wheaton and Adyar. Hope they will
read and give some careful consideration.

	MKR

On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, John E. Mead wrote:

> hi -
>
> we've  had a few constructive suggestions, and some comments which
> prefer to ignore the issue.
>
> the people who compain the loudest about the political
> junk should/would (?) welcome the oppurtunity to explain how to
> fix the problems?  or admit it is hopeless??
>
> 1. throw the organization(s) away
>
> or
>
> 2. find a way to fix it/them.
>
>
> it seemed option 2 was best.   the question is how.
>
>
> peace -
>
> john e. mead
>
> p.s. i have alot of pepcid around the house.   sigh  :-)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
> Theos-L etc. list-owner
> Member of Theosophical Society in America
> Member of Theosophy International
> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
> [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>

    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Wed Jun 19 03:29:18 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:29:18 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606190531.AC06590@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 05:54 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>The current trend is that there are more un attached members than
>members attached to lodges, branches and study centers. If this trend
>continues, it is very likely that more and more of the lodges and
>branches will get shut down and TSA can sell the property and take
>over the assets and there will be no incentive to restart any of these
>lodges or branches or study centers. The logical conclusion is that
>finally we will have most members as members at large and business
>transacted via mail order. Much different than what was envisioned by
>the Founders.
>
>Can anyone tell me why this scenario is not likely?

It seems very likely. Theosophy seems to have very little to offer today
except to keep publishing theosophical writings, primarily the early ones.
This in itself is certainly a good thing to do, but there isn't much of a
dynamic impulse working through T to affect the world anymore. And I don't
see it coming back as a vital ingredients in this activity. T is like a
burnt out rocket engine - it gave the rocket a lot of impetus, and now
something else has to take over.

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 19 06:52:12 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:52:12 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619065212.006ceb14@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations

At 02:48 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Punishing the new born for someone elses
>>fault is the hight of unfairness
>
>	Alexis, I agree.  It is a well-known fact
>in animal training that unless the animal knows
>what the punishment is for (i.e., it must be immediate
>and consistent) it can't learn.  Humans work much
>the same way.  When punishment is immediate
>and consistent it works well as a learning tool.
>When punishment is neither immediate nor
>consistent, pathology develops as in the case
>of the borderline personality disorder.  So, if
>karma really works as the core teachings say it
>does, then we are all pathological disfunctional
>victims of abuse.  Fortunately for us, karma does
>not work that way.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>Jerry:

One thing I have learned very clearly from living with 95 pounds of healthy
male wolf. Punishment is utterly useless. If one were to treat a young wolf
as the "core teachings" say Karma treats all of us, one would get one's head
torn off. The only way to teach wolves is through communication, persuasion,
and cooperation. And that is the only way to teach humans as well. If
"Karma" (as taught) is "fair" Hitler was a Germanophobe! (You know, come to
think of it, one could make a case for that notion.)

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 19 07:44:57 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:44:57 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619074457.006d83f8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 05:41 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Alexis: I posted this reply *before* I read your and Alan's comments
>in the theos-l digest I received just after sending this reply.
>There's a time-lag of approx. 24 hours (or more) between my response
>and your original posting. During that time you have posted another
>message which I haven't be able to read due to delay in reception
>of the theos-l digest. This is an important factor to keep in mind.

I think I was assuming more of a "miracle factor" in E-Mail than is truly
possible. I can see how a 24 hour delay can complicate things if one isn't
prepared for it. But, "fore warned is fore armed", and knowing of that delay
will clearly prevent either of us from making false assumptions.
>
>

>
>Alexis: as Alan suggested I have the old-fashioned connotation of the word
>criticism in mind, also due to the fact that the almost similar Dutch
>word for 'criticism' (kritiek, kritizeren) has not the same negative
>connotation as it has in modern American English. I will use the word
>'disagreement' to indicate differences of opinion from now on. That will
>be helpful to avoid misunderstandings. Believe me, I've better things to do
>than criticizing people (in the negative sense of that word).

Accepted gladly and happily. What I'd like to do from now on, is when I
question your use of a word, I will create a paragraph to be headed:
                                        TIME OUT.....LINGUISTIC QUESTION!!!!!!

And then I'll put that question to you, so that you can respond separately
from the rest of the question. How about that?
>
>
>
>A>Now, I am far more than totally "dissatisfied" with "Core Theosophy" in
>every way. In fact I totally reject it as valid. This I believe you already
>know.
>
>Yes, I know that. And I would like to see you and others present
>viable alternatives, a consistent set of ideas/experiences.
>(maybe on alt.theosophy ?)

I have actually posted one message on alt.theosophy which I reached thanks
to your suggestion that I E-Mail to alt.theosophy@news.demon.co.uk! It
worked twice, once with a message, and once with a test. Last night I tried
to send a public response to the person who asked about HPB and Hitler (I
sent the response via regular E-Mail) and got a message that my service
provider wouldn't accept that address. Today I called the Tech Support of
Slip.net but they have not as yet responded. I'll try them again tomorrow as
I am atrociously busy trying to finish one book and commence another
simultaneously. Now as to your suggestion that I present viable alternatives
etc. I have done so, and when the book comes out you can get a copy and see
the complete presentation of my ideas and perceptions. In the interim I will
try to make my responses more technical, probably not as technical as the
Blavatsky Foundation would like, but more technical. The biggest hurdle is
that it is my perception that "Core Theosophy" as presently taught, is 95%
CWL/AB....5% HPB....and 0% The Mahatmas. This perception of mine is based on
almost thirty years of vast reading of Theosophical Documents and other
documents about Theosophy. It is also based on intuition, and upon my
experiences of the greater reality (which is after all what theosophy deals
with) as both a very successful Ceremonial Magician and an extremely Senior
Shaman. Now I don't "back up" those claims with "Fairy Tales" or "Sunday
School Homilies" as CWL did. I back them up by absolutely curing very sick
people of very physical diseases by non-physical means. Martin whether you
wish to accept this as factual or not, I know I can make people with AIDS
(not simply HIV + but active AIDS) better, and I have made three such people
completely well. That proves it sufficiently for my own needs.
>
>

>
>Alexis: I would not exactly count myself as an orthodox literalist,
>that is too easy a label to put on somebody. I'm searching for truth,
>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.

Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
today's young people. Now, in addition, you say you're "searching for truth"
and I believe you are sincere in that statement. But, you also give the
impression that you've found it. And that what you have found is 19th
Century Post Blavatskian  "Core Theosophy". In your statement on alt.
theosophy you appear to be not so much a "seeker" as a "finder".
>
>
>A>For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
>the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
>that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
>any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
>amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?
>
>Alexis: I objected to your 'roll-of-the-dice' view of things. I asked
>you where the idea of justice fits in to which you responded that you
>don't believe in (universal) justice. It's still not clear to me, however,
>what you *do* believe in regarding justice. But this has nothing to do
>with amicable discussions. I always presume that people want amicable
>discussions. I was and still am asking, however, for supportive
>arguments from your side regarding your views on theosophy.

My friend Dr. Einstein also disliked the "roll-of-the-dice" which is
implicit in Quantum Mechanics, which is one of my own personal bases of
opinion. BUT, at the very end of his life, he said: "I was wrong...God does
play dice". I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
beings. Now as to Justice on a Human Scale, you will find no one more
ferocious in their defense of justice and fairness than I. But, I do not
make the mistake of thinking that Justice/fairness the human conception,
needs to have a cosmic counterpart. People need to be just, people need to
be fair, people need to be kind....to make the world a better place for us
all to live in....but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the
greater reality. I was born rich, intelligent, talented, very good looking
(I was once the highest paid fashion model in Paris) and titled. By
Theosophical "Core Doctrine" I must have deserved it! But I didn't. I was
just lucky! On the other hand, in 1919 the Communists murdered 3200 members
of my family, that wasn't Karma, it was just bad luck. Little Czarewitch
Alexei, was a 14 year old hemophiliac when he was shot to death. If that was
the result of "Karma" then Karma is about as unjust as Adolf Hitler.
>
>
>A>This is something which we all have to think about, if we are going to end
>up with anything but wreckage where the Theosophical society was, we are
>going to have to communicate peaceably, while still maintaining our
>differences What we have to accept is this: You have every right to your
>religious approach to Theosophy, and I have an equally strong right to my
>agnostic approach to theosophy.
>
>With hand of friendship out:
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>Hand accepted and shaken ,
>
>Martin
>
>
GOOD!!!!!

alexis dolgorukii>
>P.S. I will switch my attention to alt.theosophy from now on.
>You can find me there, where I will occasionally drop by.
>There are some matters I have to pay attention to and I have to
>cut down on time spend on the electronic fora for this moment.
>Suggestion: maybe you can attract some more subscribers to alt.theosophy
>by posting a message to some newsgroups, together with the reading
>and posting instructions for those who can't access this group locally
>(or Chuck could do that?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 19 07:51:43 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:51:43 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619075143.006be234@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 05:54 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>The current trend is that there are more un attached members than
>members attached to lodges, branches and study centers. If this trend
>continues, it is very likely that more and more of the lodges and
>branches will get shut down and TSA can sell the property and take
>over the assets and there will be no incentive to restart any of these
>lodges or branches or study centers. The logical conclusion is that
>finally we will have most members as members at large and business
>transacted via mail order. Much different than what was envisioned by
>the Founders.
>
>Can anyone tell me why this scenario is not likely?
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________
>Peace to all living beings.
>
>      M K Ramadoss
>
>
>Doss:

I truly wish I could tell you why that scenario is not likely! But as you
well  know, neither I nor anyone else can, because it is by far the most
likely scenario. The worst problem is: I cannot understand WHY!

That might be a good thread of discussion.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 19 08:09:05 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:09:05 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619080905.006b98e8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 08:58 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>If you can figure out a way to get people to vote you will qualify for
>adeptship in anyone's book.
>
>Chuck
>
> Actually Chuck, there are two ways. The way the French and Germans do it,
and that's heavily fine folks who don't vote. But that wouldnever get off
the ground in the USA. But the other way would. You give me the money to get
a public forum and I will get them to vote by showing them exactly why it is
in their best interest to do so, and showing them very clearly what will
happen to them if they DON'T! The big problem is neither party wants to do
that because they don't want the other party's adherents to vote. The idea
seems to be how many voters can we keep away? That dooms Democracy! You know
we spend a lot of time worrying about what will happen when theosophy goes
down the tubes...but what will happen when Democracy goes down the tubes?

Sheridan Whiteside aka Alexis

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 19 08:33:52 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:33:52 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619083352.006c5d08@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 01:28 AM 6/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>It seems very likely. Theosophy seems to have very little to offer today
>except to keep publishing theosophical writings, primarily the early ones.
>This in itself is certainly a good thing to do, but there isn't much of a
>dynamic impulse working through T to affect the world anymore. And I don't
>see it coming back as a vital ingredients in this activity. T is like a
>burnt out rocket engine - it gave the rocket a lot of impetus, and now
>something else has to take over.
>
>Bjorn
>
>roxendal@alpinet.net
>
>
>And what might that "something else" be Bjorn?

alexis

From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Wed Jun 19 10:05:37 1996
Date:          Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:02:37 -0300
From: 
Subject:       Unveiled isis
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <106C0775B1@serv.peb.ufrj.br>

Jerry said:
>I think HPB had more respect for Irenaeus' representation of
>Gnosticism then she did for many of the other ante-nicean
>fathers.  She seems to feel that his summaries of Gnostic
>Doctrine were honest--that is, his intention was to fairly
>represent those doctrines, and that he was on the whole
>successful in doing so.  On the other hand, she finds fault with
>his understanding of some of the more obscure doctrines, which we
>know little of even today.
I agree. When I read HPB, I think that someone could have a different
opinion, so I wanted to talk about Irenaeus'work to make this point clear.

You reproduce BOOK III, chapter VII (start page 256, and final page 296)
page 267. "Ecclesiastical history assures us that Christ's ministry was
but of three years' duration.  There is a decided discrepancy on this
point between the first three synoptics and the fourth gospel;
..the argument of Ptolemaeus was that Jesus was too
young to have taught anything of much importance; adding that
Christ preached for one year only, and then suffered in the
twelfth month. In this Ptolemaeus was very little at variance
with the gospels.  But Irenaeus, carried by his object [went] far
beyond the limits of prudence, from a mere discrepancy between
one and three years, makes it ten and even twenty years!"

Could you give the references in gospels that prove that synoptics and
John'gospel has a "decided discrepancy" about duration of Jesus'ministry?
I couldn't find such discrepancy.

Really HPB is correct in her quotations about Irenaeus.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES BOOK II.CHAP. XXII.--THE THIRTY AEONS ARE NOT
TYPIFIED BY THE FACT THAT CHRIST WAS BAPTIZED IN HIS THIRTIETH YEAR: HE DID
NOT SUFFER IN THE TWELFTH MONTH AFTER HIS BAPTISM, BUT WAS MORE THAN FIFTY
YEARS OLD WHEN HE DIED. we can find the wholly text in http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers/
file=ECF01.TXT

Irenaeus conclude that Jesus was more than fifty years old when he
died, from gospel "For when the Lord said to them, "Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou
art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly
applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his
fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period".

But Irenaeus' argument is wrong. Josephus Antiquities Book 18
4W02|G089 So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the
affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the
emperor to the accusation of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten
years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of
Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome,
Tiberius was dead.
6W05|G177 And, as a farther attestation to what I say of the dilatory nature
of Tiberius, I appeal to this his practice itself; for although he was emperor
twenty-two years, he sent in all but two procurators to govern the nation of
the Jews,---Gratus, and his successor in the government,Pilate.
you can find this text in http://ccel.wheaton.edu/bible/

So Pilate governed Judae during last ten years of emperor Tiberius, that
governed during twenty-two years 14-37AD. As gospels says that Jesus was
dead under Pilate, so he died before 37AD. Matthew2:19 says that Jesus
born near Herode's death, that ocurred around 4BC. So Jesus'life is below
37+4=41 years. Luke3:1 describes Jesus'baptism under 15th year of Tiberius
that is 29AD, at this time Jesus was around 30 years old Luke3:23. So
Jesus'ministry was below 41-30=11 years (if started at his baptism).

The question that HPB ommits is the reason presented by Ptolomeus to
believe that Jesus preached only one year. Irenaeus explain:
"1. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few AEons, as they
represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to
correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty AEons, nor did the Saviour
come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth
the thirty silent(3) AEons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject
[the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the
twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they
endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution"(4)), being truly blind,
inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not
understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of
retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of
twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves
acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and
allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words."

Ireneaus correctly conclude that Jesus ministry could not be only of one
year because gospels relates several passages that ocurred at passover,
a jewish date that occurs only one time by year. "after His baptism the Lord
went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem...after He had made the
water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover...
Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the
passover(2) in Jerusalem; on which occasion He cured the paralytic man...Then,
when He had raised Lazarus from the dead,and plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees,
He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written
"He came to Bethany six days before the passover,"

So, HPB ommits that Ptolomeaus and others were wrong when they associate
the one year of Jesus ministry with Aeons'description. HPB is right when she says
"But Irenaeus, carried by his object [went] far beyond the limits of
prudence, from a mere discrepancy between one and three years, makes it ten
and even twenty years!".

Abrantes


From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Jun 19 19:38:34 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 12:38:34 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606191938.MAA24558@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet

>> From ">"Dr. A.M.Bain" :
>> Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
>>
>> Subject: Re: H P Blavatsky in Tibet
>>
>> All Follow-Up: Re: H P Blavatsky in Tibet
>> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:06:31 +0100
>> References: ">1, ">2,
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In article <31C6942E.73AC@concentric.net>, Christopher Allen
>>  writes
>> >M K Ramadoss wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  Here is some very interesting news relating to HPB's visit to
>> >>  Tibet. It is excerpted from Ergates, June 1996 issue.
>> >>  ----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >>  Currently, most scholars belive that H.P.B. invented the
>> >>  *Stanzas of Dzyan* which form the basis of her *Secret
>> >>  Doctrine*. Most biographers of H.P.B. doubt that she ever went
>> >>  to Tibet, and claim that either she made up her Masters, or that
>> >>  H.P.B. was a trance medium who conjured Them spiritualistically.
>> >
>> >Interesting.  I wasn't aware that her visit to Tibet was in question.
>>
>> A colleague of mine in England has gone into this question *very*
>> thoroughly.  At the time of HPB's visits to Tibet as published in
>> theosophical literature, the routes into that country were via India,
>> which was then firmly in the grip of the British Raj.  All border
>> crossings were manned by Brit officials who recorded the comings and
>> goings of everyone in a meticulous fashion.  Her name does, if I recall
>> correctly, appear in records relating to Nepal, but not to Tibet.
>>
>> I am also informed (my friend is also a student of Tibetan history and
>> culture) that the description of a lamasery by HPB exactly matches an
>> illustration in a published book of the period, but does *not* match the
>> view of the place as actually *seen* on the ground. (Victorian English
>> illustrators were often romantic in their portrayal of the places they
>> wrote about).  I cannot right now offer more details (someone is bound
>> to ask) as my colleague is away on business for a time.
>>
>> Alan Bain
>> ---------
>> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>> Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>> TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>> http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>>

From euser@euronet.nl Wed Jun 19 20:17:59 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 22:17:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606192017.WAA14805@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re core teachings & ruminations (to Dan and Jerry S)

Daniel>Possibly the core teaching on some particular subject is just flat wrong.
But to just say that the teaching is wrong or exoteric or simplistic and not
to go
on and then show with illustrations and detail how the teaching is wrong,
etc., serves
no useful purpose and leaves me totally in the dark.  I believe this was what
Martin Euser was in part trying to say recently in one of his posts to
Alexis.


Daniel: exactly. I cannot discuss these subjects properly when someone
only points at his or her psychic experiences. I have had psychic experiences
too, but realize that one has to put one's experiences in such a form
as to be understandable for others and find some way to express one's
understandings in clear language. I realize, however, that that may be difficult
to do. New terms may have to be coined.


Daniel> BUT IN SUCH A CASE, all that I am suggesting, is that the person,
who says such & such teaching
is wrong, allow the rest of us ACCESS to his reasoning, etc.  which lead to
the conclusion,
"This is wrong."   In other words, what is his conclusion based upon?  How
did he arrive at that
conclusion?  etc.

Giving examples of what one means is often the best way, it concretizes
notions. Applying one's ideas to recognizable, daily life events and processes
is instructive.

Jerry S.>(Re ruminations) Fortunately for us, karma does
not work that way.


Jerry S: how *does* it work?
 Let me ask you another question: how did your character you had at birth
 come into existence? I don't think you believe in the 'tabula rasa' concept
of human character, do you? So, isn't this character somehow a sum-total
of experiences of previous lives? And doesn't imply this a certain
pattern for your life and an appropriate environment you're drawn to
at the time of conception? Please elucidate what your opinion is on that .
How does the event of a baby being born from a heroine addicted mother
fit in in your opinion of karma?
Some people say: 'roll of the dice', but that's a meaningless phrase to me.
Who is rolling this dice?
IOW, which consciousnesses are at work here? There is much more behind
it, but it has never been thoroughly researched IMO. And if it has been done
none has ever been able to explain these processes clearly to me, if to any
at all.

Jerry S>Well, I just read an essay by three transpersonal psychologists
(David Lukoff, Francis G. Lu, and robert Turner "Diagnosis: A
Transpersonal Clinical Approach to religious and Spiritual
Problems") in which they mention a study that found that from
30 to 40 percent of all Americans have had a mystical experience.

How or where did you get/find this essay? It looks interesting to me.

Jerry S>They conclude that these statistics are  "suggesting that these
are normal rather than pathological phenomena."  The vast
majority of these are reluctant to admit it, fearing
adverse reaction from friends and family.  In fact, I recall
Jane Huston (spelling ??) saying in a recent Quest article
that she too had a mystical experience which frightened
her because she didn't understand it.
	The same can be said for near death experiences
or NDE.  The same essay says that it is estimated that one-
third of all people who are close to dying have NDEs that
significantly change their lives.  That is a lot of people.  One
of the things that transpersonal psychology is doing is
helping these people to understand their experiences.
Why can't theosophy help?



Jerry: why don't you give us a start on that?
 When I have some spare time for doing some reading on transpersonal psychology
 I will certainly do so. Some synthesis with theosophy seems appropriate
 to me.


Jerry S>So, the statistics
that HPB was paying with a hundred years ago, no longer
applies, Dan.

Right. The 'signs of the time' tell us that we can't ignore NDE and other
psychic experiences. Theosophists should do well to think this over and
consider what theosophy can mean to people with this kind of experiences.


Martin


From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 19 21:12:05 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:12:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <960618203625_137883174@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:

> Doss,
> The idea of all members-at-large was something the founders never saw, but
> there was no way they could in that time.  With our means of communication,
> lodges are an interesting anachronism, a leftover from the days of horses and
> buggies.
> It would be a shame to lose the olcott property, but I have a feeling that
> that will not happen.  The presence of a national hq site has too many
> practical advantages.
>
> Chuck

Chuck:

I did not for one moment consider losing Olcott property. Even with mail
order operation and lending library and printing and distribution, there
would be a need for real estate space to carry on these activities.

Based on my personal experience, even with the modern mode of
communications, the presence of local lodges and study centers can be
very useful due to the personal chemistry that occurs when people meet. I
am yet to see any planned effort on the part of TSA to address this
issue.

On the question of modern technolog, whether TSA is poised to make full
use of modern means of  communications such as telephone, internet,
teleconferencing, faxes etc. I am not sure.

IMHO, it is not so, even though TSA administration may say it is.
For a simple example, in the recent exchange of communications I had
with with John  Algeo regarding Voting Tally info release, he was
defacto adamant  in using the snailmail even after I gave him the cost
and efficiency reasons of using  the fax and e-mail. The transmission
cost of a single page of fax is 7  cents compared to 32 cents for USPS
and the marginal cost of e-mail to anywhere in the world is ZERO.

Only time will tell.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 01:37:59 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:37:59 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960619213758_417757546@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Alex,
Well, you could always pay them to vote.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 01:41:13 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:41:13 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960619214111_417759586@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma

Alan,
Very true, most of the TSers I deal with are very happy having absolutely
nothing to do with either the LCC or Co-Masonry.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 01:43:35 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:43:35 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960619214327_417761675@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Doss,
The people who make up the TS are far better than the organization and they
will find a way without it.  Groups are nice, but consider this.  I have made
friends on the net that I have never seen and may never see.  It is a
different ball game, something the founders could never have conceived of.

Chuck
From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 20 01:36:15 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:36:15 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606200338.AA17535@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 04:47 AM 6/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>It seems very likely. Theosophy seems to have very little to offer today
>>except to keep publishing theosophical writings, primarily the early ones.
>>This in itself is certainly a good thing to do, but there isn't much of a
>>dynamic impulse working through T to affect the world anymore. And I don't
>>see it coming back as a vital ingredients in this activity. T is like a
>>burnt out rocket engine - it gave the rocket a lot of impetus, and now
>>something else has to take over.
>>
>>Bjorn


>And what might that "something else" be Bjorn?
>
>alexis

The Masters didn't sit idle before Theosophy and they haven't slowed down
since. They have sent avatars and sponsored various religious impulses
throughout the ages. How can you find about what they are up to these days?
As Jesus said "My sheep know my voice". But, that may not help you, since he
didn't say "My volwes know my voice".

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Wed Jun 19 19:38:34 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 12:38:34 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606191938.MAA24558@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet

>> From ">"Dr. A.M.Bain" :
>> Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
>>
>> Subject: Re: H P Blavatsky in Tibet
>>
>> All Follow-Up: Re: H P Blavatsky in Tibet
>> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:06:31 +0100
>> References: ">1, ">2,
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In article <31C6942E.73AC@concentric.net>, Christopher Allen
>>  writes
>> >M K Ramadoss wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  Here is some very interesting news relating to HPB's visit to
>> >>  Tibet. It is excerpted from Ergates, June 1996 issue.
>> >>  ----------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >>  Currently, most scholars belive that H.P.B. invented the
>> >>  *Stanzas of Dzyan* which form the basis of her *Secret
>> >>  Doctrine*. Most biographers of H.P.B. doubt that she ever went
>> >>  to Tibet, and claim that either she made up her Masters, or that
>> >>  H.P.B. was a trance medium who conjured Them spiritualistically.
>> >
>> >Interesting.  I wasn't aware that her visit to Tibet was in question.
>>
>> A colleague of mine in England has gone into this question *very*
>> thoroughly.  At the time of HPB's visits to Tibet as published in
>> theosophical literature, the routes into that country were via India,
>> which was then firmly in the grip of the British Raj.  All border
>> crossings were manned by Brit officials who recorded the comings and
>> goings of everyone in a meticulous fashion.  Her name does, if I recall
>> correctly, appear in records relating to Nepal, but not to Tibet.
>>
>> I am also informed (my friend is also a student of Tibetan history and
>> culture) that the description of a lamasery by HPB exactly matches an
>> illustration in a published book of the period, but does *not* match the
>> view of the place as actually *seen* on the ground. (Victorian English
>> illustrators were often romantic in their portrayal of the places they
>> wrote about).  I cannot right now offer more details (someone is bound
>> to ask) as my colleague is away on business for a time.
>>
>> Alan Bain
>> ---------
>> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>> Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>> TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>> http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>>

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 20 01:21:59 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 02:21:59 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <2u1RJFA3eKyxEwJT@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: CWL03C.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL03C.TXT
-------------

In continuing the scanning of the REPLY to the President's Letter
   begun as CWL03A.TXT, I have had to work with a very poor copy,
   and the work is taking much longer than anticipated.  This pamphlet
   is about half finished.

Some readers may wonder (again) what point there is in dredging up
   these past "scandals" in the Theosophical Society.  The view of
   masturbation as "self-abuse" would raise few supporters today, and
   the fact that the British Section make such strong condemnation of
   it simply reflects the views of the Victorian era of which they
   were a part.

This, however, although mentioned at length in the literature, is not
   the major concern, when one looks beneath the surface of the
   circumstances.  The real problems arose because the International
   President, together with other officials of the T.S., *lied* to
   her own members, *denied* them full access to all the relevant
   documents, and, with CWL, could be said to appear to manipulate
   the Society and its members to her own purposes.

It has been argued, in very recent times, that a similar attitude has
   prevailed within the T.S. in America, and it would not be the first
   time in the history of the Society that similar allegations have
   been made.

My task here, however, is not to draw conclusions, but to present as
   much of the evidence as is available in a case which was crucial
   to the future (and therefore the present) nature of the Theosophical
   Society itself.  No doubt, at the end of this exercise, which will be
   a long one, I shall offer some more thoughts and opinions.

For the moment, let us read some more of the REPLY to Annie Besant made
   by some members of the British Section in November, 1908:

-----------------------------------------

The President's Pledges.

In April, 1907, in answer to a telegram from the Council of the
   Blavatsky Lodge in these words: "Would you as President permit
   X's [Mr. Leadbeater's] readmission?" - Mrs. Besant replied:

"If publicly repudiates teaching, two years after repudiation on
   large majority request of whole Society, would reinstate;
   otherwise not."

What Mrs. Besant meant by "repudiation," and what we have all
   understood her to mean, is quite clear from her public letter to
   the members of the British Section, dated March 24, 1907 (p. 5).
   [This was written nine months after Mrs. Besant had received the
   official Minutes of the Advisory Committee, and her opinion,
   therefore, was then not based on alleged "false information."]

"As regards his [Mr. L.'s] readmission to the Society - I do not
   know that he wishes readmission - I shall continue to oppose it,
   as I have hitherto done, until he says publicly that the
   teaching is *wrong* [italics Mrs. Besant's], not only that he
   will refrain from it, as he promised to do in February, 1906,
   and also before the Advisory Board in London." [In his letter to
   The Vahan (May, 1907), Mr. Leadbeater himself says that he does
   not wish to rejoin.]

At the Convention of the American Section, 1906, Mrs. Kate
   Buffington Davis read the following from a letter of Mrs.
   Besant's, dated from Benares, August 9, 1906. [Mrs. Besant had
   also already received her official copy of the Minutes by this
   date.]

Any proposal to reinstate Mr Leadbeater in the membership of the
   T.S. would be ruinous to the Society. It would be indignantly
   repudiated here and in Europe, and I am sure in Australia and
   New Zealand, if the facts were known. If such a proposal were
   carried in America - I do not believe it possible - I should
   move all the T.S. Council, the supreme authority, that the
   application of membership should be rejected. But I am sure that
   Mr. Leadbeater would not apply.

Why Mrs. Besant italicises the word "wrong" in the last quotation
   but one is quite evident to all who remember her exceedingly
   strong, unequivocal, and repeated acceptance of the phenomenal
   pronouncements published by the late President-Founder just
   prior to his decease.

In his Presidential Address at the Adyar Anniversary Meeting,
   December 29, 1906 (see General Report, p.3), referring to the
   Leadbeater case, and to the specific question as to whether Mr.
   Leadbeater's teaching was right or wrong, Col. Olcott stated:

"So when Mahatma M. came to me last Friday night I asked Him the
   question, and He replied "wrong.""

In a letter to Mr. Leadbeater, dated January 12, 1907, Colonel
   Olcott writes on his death-bed:

"Both Mahatma M. and Mahatma K.H. assured me you did well to
   resign; that it was right to call a Council to advise upon the
   matter, and that I did right in accepting your resignation; but
   They said we were wrong in allowing the matter to be made
   public, for your sake and the good of the Society. They said you
   should have stated in your resignation that you resigned because
   you had offended the standard of ideals of the majority of the
   members of the Society by giving out certain teachings which
   were considered objectionable. They have told both Annie and
   myself that your teaching young boys to . . . is wrong."

In Colonel Olcott's report of one of the Adyar "interviews," dated
   January 11, 1907, in reply to a leading question, the answer
   reported is:

"No, we cannot tell you this, for that concerns himself alone, but
   it is different when he teaches things to others that will
   harm."

And in answer to another question:

"Write and ask him, it is not for us to say. We do, however, affirm
   that these teachings are wrong."

Moreover, in her pamphlet on The Testing of the Theosophical
   Society (one of her Election addresses), Mrs. Besant writes
   (p.7), in reference to Col. Olcott's "Conversation with the
   Mahatmas":

"I may add that the " Conversation" in no way suggests Mr.
   Leadbeater's reinstatement, and that we at Adyar could not read
   that into it, as we were told at the same time that the Master,
   in answer to a suggestion to that effect, has sternly refused
   his approval."

We do not cite these utterances as authoritative for ourselves, nor
   do we pause to criticise them, we simply place them on record to
   show why Mrs. Besant emphasised the word "wrong."

On this point at least we thought we were all agreed on ordinary
   grounds of morality whether we accepted or rejected the
   authority of the phenomenal answers reported by Colonel Olcott.
   The thing was unquestionably wrong under any circumstances.

"Mahatmic" Contradictions.

In May, however, of this year, Dr. van Hook, the General Secretary
   of the American Section, and as such a member of the General
   Council of the Society, in Open Letters to his Section, declared
   that Mr. Leadbeater' s teaching on the point was right in every
   respect. (Addendum, May 5th, 1908, p.6):

"No mistake was made by Mr. Leadbeater in the nature of the advice
   he gave his boys. No mistake was made in the way he gave it."

It was at the same time widely circulated privately on his own
   declaration, that these Letters were not really his, but
   "dictated verbatim by one of the Masters." These astounding
   statements obtained the widest credence, and the result was that
   Mr. Leadbeater was invited to take the post of editor of part of
   the official organ of the American Section, by a large majority
   referendum vote.

In face of this, many of the members of the British Section could
   no longer remain silent; they were bound to protest, and call
   attention to the very grave danger that threatened the Society,
   and in which it is now actually involved.

These "Mahatmic" pronouncements, however, were not the ground of
   that protest; it may be left to those who believe in their
   authenticity to reconcile their glaring contradictions. No
   decision on such manifest incongruities was asked for, and
   therefore, Mrs. Besant's argument as to official ruling. on pp.
   13 and 14 of her Letter is quite beside the point.

The Logical Consequence of Dr. van Hook's Contention.

What was strongly objected to and most energetically protested
   against was the public declaration by a responsible officer of
   the General Council that Mr. Leadbeater's teaching is right.  If
   Mr. Leadbeater's teaching is right, and he made no mistake in
   any way whatever, as Dr. van Hook (or his "Master" if he prefers
   it) contends, why should not Mr. Leadbeater continue such
   teachings, as they have proved, according to Dr. van Hook, of
   the greatest value; and by a parity of reasoning, why should not
   any pupil of Mr. Leadbeater's or anyone else in the Society who
   wishes to follow his footsteps, do the same?

Against this hideous prospect we protested and do protest.  If Mr.
   Leadbeater's teaching is right, then it should he followed.
   That is the only logical position. Mr. Leadbeater himself says
   it would be "dangerous" only "If promiscuously given"; he as an
   occultist knows when it should be given, he claims.  It is not
   really dangerous for him to give it; and he simply bows to Mrs.
   Besant's "opinion that it is dangerous." Mr. Leadbeater is
   consistent in this, that he has never recanted; he has defended
   this teaching in the face of everything. What conclusion is
   likely to be drawn from this by those who believe that Mr.
   Leadbeater is a high adept? Simply that he knows on this
   subject; and has only promised not to do it again because of
   prudish convention, ignorant "hysterical" uproar, and "insane
   prejudices." He is the "martyr" occultist persecuted for his
   knowledge! What results?  That his pupils will think as he
   thinks; that they will do as he has done.  Why not, if he was
   and is right?

This view, that Mr. Leadbeater is right, is already being adopted
   far and wide in the Society at this moment. In what way does
   Mrs. Besant's Letter help us to stem the tide?

Mrs. Besant's Contradictions.

Mrs. Besant's view (pp. 5 and 6) emphasised to a final utterance
   for those who accept her authority ("I speak as Occultist. 'He
   that is able to receive it, let him receive it'" leaves the door
   wide open for Mr. Leadbeater's teaching. But at the expense of
   what contradiction! Mr. Leadbeater has taught it, and refuses to
   repudiate the teaching; yet he is said by Mrs. Besant at the
   same time to be "at one " with her in condemning it as being
   "degrading, unmanly, unwomanly" (p. 61, while he himself
   declares that it is "dangerous" only "if promiscuously given"
   (The Theosophist, Feb., 1908), and Mrs. Besant herself elsewhere
   in her Letter (pp. 7 and 8) expresses only disagreement and
   withdraws condemnation.

But H.P.B. did not equivocate on the subject - and she, we suppose
   - could speak with as much authority on occultism as
   Mr.Leadbeater and Mrs. Besant. (She characterised it to me as
   "the sin against the Holy Ghost" - G.R.S.M.) [See The Secret
   Doctrine, iii. 445 (Diagram).]

Mrs. Besant has now entirely changed her former view on the
   subject, for in her Letter,* of June 9, 1906, she writes of her
   first impression on hearing the charges in February:

*{This is the " Simla Letter" sent to the E.S. wardens and
   sub-wardens, with a covering note in which occur the words: "
   You may use publicly my view of the fatal nature of the
   teaching, *should need arise.*" [The italics are Mrs.
   Besant's.]}

"This was the first time I had heard of such a method of meeting
   the sexual difficulty, let alone of Mr. Leadbeater's
   recommendation of it. I had always regarded self-abuse as one of
   the lowest forms of vice, a thing universally reprobated by
   decent people. To me it was not arguable. But I have since heard
   that it is sometimes practised and recommended by ascetics,
   otherwise good men, for the sake of preserving chastity - as
   though self-abuse did not destroy chastity as much as
   prostitution, and in an even more degrading way!"

But Mrs. Besant now asserts (pp.5 and 6) that "Occultism" "condemns
   solitary vice as only less harmful than prostitution." To us it
   still remains "not arguable," and to this we make no exception,
   either on the ground of the lesser of two evils, or on the
   perverted ground of doing evil that good may come. and therefore
   we protest and appeal to all who love the good name of the
   Society, to pronounce unmistakably on this subject, and to
   resist the triumphant reinstatement Into the Society as an
   injured "martyr" of the man who has brought all this sorrow and
   suffering upon us. In a Society like ours, just because of the
   deference his many pupils, adherents, and admirers pay to Mr.
   Leadbeater's assertions, his obstinate insistence that his
   teaching is right is the most potent means of erecting it into a
   generally recognised Theosophical doctrine, of the first
   importance. This is proved by the fact that Dr. Weller van Hook
   in one of his Open Letters (Addendum, May 5, pp. 5 and 6)
   appeals to the doctrines of reincarnation and karma, as
   expounded by Mr. Leadbeater especially to suit his teaching, in
   justification of it. The boys' statements also that it was
   taught as "Theosophical" formed the basis of one of the charges.

This pernicious teaching is not merely "ascribed" to Mr.
   Leadbeater, as Mrs. Besant says in her opening words, it is
   fully and freely confessed by him and strenuously defended. In
   what way this teaching, which Mrs. Besant now refuses to
   condemn, when taught by Mr. Leadbeater, can make for "purity"
   and for "the Society's good name" (p. 3) is beyond us.

---------
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 Jun 20 06:43:50 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:43:50 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620064350.006cbf9c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma

John:

O.K. all joking aside. The situation is almost hopeless, but I believe (or
is it hope) that it is not irretrievable. HPB had high hopes for theosophy,
and while it's about 11:45 P.M. Mid Night hasn't struck.

Now theosophy itself, as HPB predicted, will go on forever as it has existed
forever in the past. But The Theosophical Society is confronted by a nearly
terminal situation and that is two utterly dichotomous and unfortunately
mutually hostile views of what constitutes theosophy. It is going to be very
difficult indeed reconciling those who view theosophy as a process (of whom
I am one) and those who view Theosophy as a "Core Doctrine" which is a
species of religion. Can it be done? I really don't know. The more important
question is SHOULD it be done? And to that  question too, I am unsure of the
answer. It's always an error to create false expectations because nothing at
all is more harmful.

I think if we mutually agree we should at least try, then a good start could
be made by changing the administrative structure entirely. The most
important action would be to do as James Long did so wisely in the Pasadena
T.S. and disband the E.S. The next most important action is to totally
remove all vestiges of authoritarianism from the society and have a much
reduced administration simply doing logistical duties instead of "ruling" as
it does today. It is currently a phase in most human societies for power to
devolve to smaller and more local sites. In the T.S. this could equate to
Federations and Lodges. This should probably depend on membership numbers.
No very small group need a ponderous "International" administration.

Well anyway, that's for starters

alexis dolgorukii

>
>

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 20 22:56:07 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:56:07 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <$tphMKAHcdyxEw4z@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960620064350.006cbf9c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960620064350.006cbf9c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>a good start could
>be made by changing the administrative structure entirely. The most
>important action would be to do as James Long did so wisely in the Pasadena
>T.S. and disband the E.S. The next most important action is to totally
>remove all vestiges of authoritarianism from the society and have a much
>reduced administration simply doing logistical duties instead of "ruling" as
>it does today. It is currently a phase in most human societies for power to
>devolve to smaller and more local sites. In the T.S. this could equate to
>Federations and Lodges. This should probably depend on membership numbers.
>No very small group need a ponderous "International" administration.
>
>Well anyway, that's for starters

I can't see any group that enjoys the exercise of power doing such
things voluntarily.  The phase of which you speak hasn't come cheap, has
it?  There has been a lot of fighting and killing, and the phase is only
yet in its infancy, IMO.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Jun 20 22:48:47 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:48:47 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606202354.TAA06797@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma

>John:
>
>At some point when all the fixing ideas have been collected, it may be a
>good idea to get them communicated to Wheaton and Adyar. Hope they will
>read and give some careful consideration.
>
>	MKR
............................................................................
Dear Doss & John,

I don't agree with communicating our ideas to Wheaton and Adyar, namely
we've tried that, & haven't gotten any response. In my opinion, we ought to
get together, decide which way we'd like to proceed, & then just do it.

Liesel
............................................................................



>
>On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, John E. Mead wrote:
>
>> hi -
>>
>> we've  had a few constructive suggestions, and some comments which
>> prefer to ignore the issue.
>>
>> the people who compain the loudest about the political
>> junk should/would (?) welcome the oppurtunity to explain how to
>> fix the problems?  or admit it is hopeless??
>>
>> 1. throw the organization(s) away
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2. find a way to fix it/them.
>>
>>
>> it seemed option 2 was best.   the question is how.
>>
>>
>> peace -
>>
>> john e. mead
>>
>> p.s. i have alot of pepcid around the house.   sigh  :-)
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>> Theos-L etc. list-owner
>> Member of Theosophical Society in America
>> Member of Theosophy International
>> [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>> [Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
>
>
>
>

From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 23:56:08 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:56:08 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620195606_221715188@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma

John,
I don't think pepcid will fix the problems the TSA has.  I think a large
enema might be more appropriate.

Chuck
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 21 00:35:25 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:35:25 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <31C8757C.5875@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <31C8757C.5875@whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown
 writes
>Alan wrote:
>
>> We could start by agreeing to try to be polite to each other at all
>> times, not to employ personal pejorative remarks, even if the apparent
>> facts are unpalatable to us individually.  Where there is dispute, then
>> let those who bring up the dispute also bring up the *explained* reasons
>> for disputing whatever the question is.snip.........
>Alan
>
>I am still lurking around the fringe and now that the 'bad karma' has spread
>to here too, I will stick my neck out again.
>I agree with what Alan says to a point as there are a few of us who left
>theos-l because of the lack of brotherhood in general.
>I would like to ask how many of the unhappy dissidents are active members of
>a Lodge?

Well I was, but they kicked me off the committee illegally, and attempts
were made to kick me out of the Lodge, but I transferred to "unattached"
to avoid this before they got even nastier ...

> From what I gathered not many. What make you think that the powers
>that be are going to take any notice of all your fist shaking and finger
>pointing?

None at all - I have done exactly what was wanted of me!

> It is easier to do that than to find a constructive alternative.
>You have already established your presence on the Internet which Adyar etc
>have not. What are you doing with it except squabble and turn off anyone who
>may be looking for theosophy as a meaningful way of life. You have created TI
>but I have not seen it used to give theosophy a real presence in cyberspace.

A good point.  A recent attempt to get opinions re amending the TI
"First Object" failed due to the low level of response .....
>
>We are lucky here in NZ that we have 14 Lodges and .... not all TS
happennings are negative ....

You are very lucky indeed - maybe the new impetus will come from NZ!

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 Jun 20 06:10:27 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:10:27 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620061027.006c12ac@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet

I would like to comment on Christopher Allen's remark below.
a.d.

At 03:41 PM 6/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>> From ">"Dr. A.M.Bain" :
>>> Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: H P Blavatsky in Tibet
>>>
>>> All Follow-Up: Re: H P Blavatsky in Tibet
>>> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:06:31 +0100
>>> References: ">1, ">2,
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> In article <31C6942E.73AC@concentric.net>, Christopher Allen
>>>  writes
>>> >M K Ramadoss wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>  Here is some very interesting news relating to HPB's visit to
>>> >>  Tibet. It is excerpted from Ergates, June 1996 issue.
>>> >>  ----------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> >>  Currently, most scholars belive that H.P.B. invented the
>>> >>  *Stanzas of Dzyan* which form the basis of her *Secret
>>> >>  Doctrine*. Most biographers of H.P.B. doubt that she ever went
>>> >>  to Tibet, and claim that either she made up her Masters, or that
>>> >>  H.P.B. was a trance medium who conjured Them spiritualistically.
>>> >
>>> >Interesting.  I wasn't aware that her visit to Tibet was in question.

One of the most important things for ALL theosophists, of whatever opinion,
to comprehend, is that ALL aspects of HPB's life, no matter how well
documented, are "up for grabs" in public opinion media. No matter what we
pitifully few theosophist may think of her. The public questions her every
motive, every action, every word. She has been tried, and convicted, in the
largest percentile of public opinion as a fraud, a fake, and a Russian Spy.
An even more important thing to remember is that the really greatest
percentile of the public has never heard of HPB or theosophy at all. If we
forget this, even for a moment, we are setting ourselves up for immense
disappointment.

>>> A colleague of mine in England has gone into this question *very*
>>> thoroughly.  At the time of HPB's visits to Tibet as published in
>>> theosophical literature, the routes into that country were via India,
>>> which was then firmly in the grip of the British Raj.  All border
>>> crossings were manned by Brit officials who recorded the comings and
>>> goings of everyone in a meticulous fashion.  Her name does, if I recall
>>> correctly, appear in records relating to Nepal, but not to Tibet.

India, where the "Raj" ruled,is South of Tibet. There are other borders.
according to HPB, the first time she went to Tibet, she left Erivan (Russian
Armenia) and with Chirghiz escorts proceeded to Tibet from there, she would
have encountered no British Border Patrols from the Northwestern access
routes. There were alternative routes into Tibet from China, and there were
certainly routes into Tibet from Nepal that were, and had been, used by
smugglers for ages untold. She could have, if she wanted, and was permitted
(by the Panchen Lama) have entered Tibet from Nepal at any time.She also
claimed that she met her "Master" in Darjeeling and was "taken" by him into
Tibet. That, of course, is open to interpretation. does that mean taken
PHYSICALLY into Tibet? Or taken to Tibet in her Astral/aetheric form? It is
very difficult indeed, to know exactly where truth lies in all these
matters. There has been so much revisionism since 1891 that perhaps we will
never know.

>>>
>>> I am also informed (my friend is also a student of Tibetan history and
>>> culture) that the description of a lamasery by HPB exactly matches an
>>> illustration in a published book of the period, but does *not* match the
>>> view of the place as actually *seen* on the ground. (Victorian English
>>> illustrators were often romantic in their portrayal of the places they
>>> wrote about).  I cannot right now offer more details (someone is bound
>>> to ask) as my colleague is away on business for a time.

Here we have it again. What is "truth"? Well the motto of theosophy is
"There is no religion higher than truth" so perhaps it's our mission to try
to find out what it really is. I think that a goodly proportion of HPB's
words and actions were intended to motivate us into doing so.
Finding out what "truth" really is, is theosophy as a process.
>>>
>>> Alan Bain
>>> ---------
>>> THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>>> Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>>> TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>>> http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>>>
alexis dolgorukii>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 06:22:19 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:22:19 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620062219.006c6ef4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 05:14 PM 6/19/96 -0400, you wrote:


>Only time will tell.
>
>_______________________________________________________
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
>
>In a way of course, the Inter-net and modern communications technology is
absolutely vital. It has changed the world considerably and will change it
even more drastically in years to come. But I have a question.

What happens if all the members of the T.S. EXCEPT the Esoteric Section are
either members-at-large (which I am) or else electronic members? What
happens when actual human contact is lost? I think much of the rawness and
harshness sometimes experienced on this list is due to the personal
anonymity electronic contact provides. What then, happens to the T.S. when
the only members with face-to-face contact are members of the E.S.?

Is this what is desired by the administrators? How better to divide and
conquer than to detach?

alexis dolgorukii
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 06:27:41 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:27:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620062741.006c628c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 10:09 PM 6/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>The people who make up the TS are far better than the organization and they
>will find a way without it.  Groups are nice, but consider this.  I have made
>friends on the net that I have never seen and may never see.  It is a
>different ball game, something the founders could never have conceived of.
>
>Chuck
>
>Chuck:

What you say is true, and I too have made electronic friends on the net. No
one knows that better than you! But in the cases of some of them, I'd sure
like to make them dinner and sit around the table afterwards sharing human
contact. When I first came to theosophy I did so look forward to the Lodge
Meetings, and Federation Meetings and programs etc. We had a lot of fun.
Sure we had disagreements but it's hard to villify someone everyone's seen
with crumbs in their beard! It is a very great concern of mine that, due to
electronic communications we will lose actual human to human contact.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 06:47:21 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:47:21 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620064721.006cb35c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 11:36 PM 6/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>

>The Masters didn't sit idle before Theosophy and they haven't slowed down
>since. They have sent avatars and sponsored various religious impulses
>throughout the ages. How can you find about what they are up to these days?
>As Jesus said "My sheep know my voice". But, that may not help you, since he
>didn't say "My volwes know my voice".
>
>Bjorn
>
>roxendal@alpinet.net
>
>
>Perhpas he was one of the "wolves" eh Bjorn? But in any case, as you know,
I don't believe that the Jesus you talk about was a real person, or even a
real egregore, so your response is irrelevant as usual.
alexis

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 06:51:47 1996
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:51:47 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620065147.006cba08@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 12:09 AM 6/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Well, you could always pay them to vote.
>
>Chuck
>
>NO, no, no,no, make them pay NOT to vote! Oh well, the thing they've got to
see, is that if they DON'T vote they'll lose the opportunity to do do, and
then they'll whine, but it will be too late some wolf like me will come
along and tell them what to do, and what to think, and what they may say!
I'd be very classy at doing it, after all my ancestors did it for about
three thousand years!

alex

From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 20 14:28:24 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:28:24 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606201428.QAA06362@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)


A> I can see how a 24 hour delay can complicate things if one isn't
prepared for it. But, "fore warned is fore armed", and knowing of that delay
will clearly prevent either of us from making false assumptions.

yes.

A> What I'd like to do from now on, is when I
question your use of a word, I will create a paragraph to be headed:
                                        TIME OUT.....LINGUISTIC QUESTION!!!!!!
And then I'll put that question to you, so that you can respond separately
from the rest of the question. How about that?


Excellent idea, Alexis!


A>Now as to your suggestion that I present viable alternatives
etc. I have done so, and when the book comes out you can get a copy and see
the complete presentation of my ideas and perceptions.


Ok, I'll give you my snail-mail address by then.



A> In the interim I will
try to make my responses more technical, probably not as technical as the
Blavatsky Foundation would like, but more technical. The biggest hurdle is
that it is my perception that "Core Theosophy" as presently taught, is 95%
CWL/AB....5% HPB....and 0% The Mahatmas.


In TSA but not in other TS's. CWL/AB do not count there.

A> This perception of mine is based on
almost thirty years of vast reading of Theosophical Documents and other
documents about Theosophy. It is also based on intuition, and upon my
experiences of the greater reality (which is after all what theosophy deals
with) as both a very successful Ceremonial Magician and an extremely Senior
Shaman.


What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.



A> Now I don't "back up" those claims with "Fairy Tales" or "Sunday
School Homilies" as CWL did. I back them up by absolutely curing very sick
people of very physical diseases by non-physical means. Martin whether you
wish to accept this as factual or not, I know I can make people with AIDS
(not simply HIV + but active AIDS) better, and I have made three such people
completely well. That proves it sufficiently for my own needs.


Well, I think that  a really good healer should be able to heal people
with AIDS, so that's not a problem with me. If the word is spread your
house may be flooded with AIDS-patients (then you will be faced with
problems of how to deal with too many patients).
But being a good healer does not give you any 'authority', I think, other
than you having confidence in your own experiences. I don't recognize
any authority at all in spiritual affairs, save my own Higher Self.
Of course , sometimes things that others say may resonate and make sense
to me, because I recognize what they're saying.



>
>Alexis: I would not exactly count myself as an orthodox literalist,
>that is too easy a label to put on somebody. I'm searching for truth,
>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.

A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
today's young people.

Never had one complaint about that. I wonder whether others have some
experience with that. The necessity of presenting a framework doesn't
disappear with that, however.

A> Now, in addition, you say you're "searching for truth"
and I believe you are sincere in that statement. But, you also give the
impression that you've found it. And that what you have found is 19th
Century Post Blavatskian  "Core Theosophy". In your statement on alt.
theosophy you appear to be not so much a "seeker" as a "finder".

Hm, that's probably my surface appearance. But that can be deceptive.
To give one example: I don't believe in a 'law of karma' in a literal way.
I rather see this 'law' as the interactions of the multitudes of beings.
'Chaos' would be the conflict of wills, leading to a breaking of order
(gradual transformations of structures or, sometimes, revolutions)
 and 'order' a symphony of wills, leading to stability (but if continued
too long: leading to crystallization, stasis).
How does that sound to you?
I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.

Alexis, sometimes I get the impression that you seem to have found
*your truth* despite the fact that you call yourself 'agnostic'
and I'm not ironic in any way by saying this.


>Alexis: I objected to your 'roll-of-the-dice' view of things. I asked
>you where the idea of justice fits in to which you responded that you
>don't believe in (universal) justice. It's still not clear to me, however,
>what you *do* believe in regarding justice. But this has nothing to do
>with amicable discussions. I always presume that people want amicable
>discussions. I was and still am asking, however, for supportive
>arguments from your side regarding your views on theosophy.

A>My friend Dr. Einstein also disliked the "roll-of-the-dice" which is
implicit in Quantum Mechanics, which is one of my own personal bases of
opinion. BUT, at the very end of his life, he said: "I was wrong...God does
play dice".


Well, Alexis, I have a degree in physics and have studied QM and
the recent findings in that field a bit and things are not precisely
like you and many other lay-people in physics presume. Quantum mechanics
gives a description of the *measurement process* and nothing more.
Moreover, physicists find themselves flabbergasted with the discovery of
'non-locality' in the quantum realm. This discovery will lead eventually
to a new kind of QM.
It's too technical to describe, but this discovery has also implications
for relativity-theory. It is evident that some basic assumptions in RT
are wrong. Only which one(s)? Nobody knows yet.

A> I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
beings. Now as to Justice on a Human Scale, you will find no one more
ferocious in their defense of justice and fairness than I. But, I do not
make the mistake of thinking that Justice/fairness the human conception,
needs to have a cosmic counterpart.


Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize this conception too, but I am
convinced that there is Order in this universe, however it may be
working. What is your view on order and structure in this universe?
And how is it related to the equilibrium you're talking about in the
previous paragraph?

A>People need to be just, people need to
be fair, people need to be kind....to make the world a better place for us
all to live in....but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the
greater reality.


But it has everything to do with the thoughtpatterns (egregores) people
are feeding. And these patterns have consequences for the whole world.
Voila, that's an example of karma as I apply or maybe better: translate
into psychological terms.

A>I was born rich, intelligent, talented, very good looking
(I was once the highest paid fashion model in Paris) and titled. By
Theosophical "Core Doctrine" I must have deserved it! But I didn't. I was
just lucky! On the other hand, in 1919 the Communists murdered 3200 members
of my family, that wasn't Karma, it was just bad luck.


Or a disastrous outcome of egregore energies (created and sustained by
people, not an abstract entity).


A>Little Czarewitch
Alexei, was a 14 year old hemophiliac when he was shot to death. If that was
the result of "Karma" then Karma is about as unjust as Adolf Hitler.


Like I said, I don't believe in that kind of karma. It is *people* that
act and *people* that suffer. Nothing mysterious about that.
You acknowledge the existence of egregores; an understanding of these
things is an understanding of events, I think.


Martin




From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Thu Jun 20 15:40:26 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:40:26 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606201742.AA24551@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 02:46 AM 6/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>The Masters didn't sit idle before Theosophy and they haven't slowed down
>>since. They have sent avatars and sponsored various religious impulses
>>throughout the ages. How can you find about what they are up to these days?
>>As Jesus said "My sheep know my voice". But, that may not help you, since he
>>didn't say "My volwes know my voice".
>>
>>Bjorn
>>
>>roxendal@alpinet.net
>>
>>
>>Perhpas he was one of the "wolves" eh Bjorn? But in any case, as you know,
>I don't believe that the Jesus you talk about was a real person, or even a
>real egregore, so your response is irrelevant as usual.
>alexis

Well, we seem to live in different universes, incompatible in almost every
respect. Anyway, reality will not be fooled. Truth will prevail.

Bjorn



roxendal@alpinet.net

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Jun 20 18:29:26 1996
Date: 20 Jun 96 14:29:26 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: core teachings & ruminations
Message-Id: <960620182925_76400.1474_HHL75-1@CompuServe.COM>

>>Jerry S.>(Re ruminations) Fortunately for us, karma does
>>not work that way.
>
>Jerry S: how *does* it work?
	Impersonally as causation.  Good and evil, reward
and punishment, have nothing to do with it.  This is how we
human beings see it most of the time, but karma, like nature,
doesn't care about "sin" and dispensing rewards to human
beings who have been "good."  This is our own psychological
projection.


> Let me ask you another question: how did your character you had at birth
come into existence? I don't think you believe in the 'tabula rasa' concept
of human character, do you?
	No, I don't.  Nor did Jung.  I agree with Jung that the psyche
pre-exists birth.  It is the conscious ego that is born and grows and
finally dies.


>So, isn't this character somehow a sum-total
>of experiences of previous lives?
	It could be, but it has to be more than that, and doesn't
need to be that at all.  It is not our character or personality that
reincarnates, but the skandhas or propensities.  Tendencies.
These are the "genetic" part of each incarnation.  But there is
also an environmental part.  Cancer, for example is now known
to require both an environmental "trigger" and a "cancer gene."
So, in order to get cancer we must have the gene (past life
tendency) as well as trigger it environmentally (e.g., some kind
of exposure to a carcinigen).  The same is true for everything in
life.  In an exoteric sense, we can say that we need karma from
past lives together with karma from this life.  But since our past
life karma takes the form of genetics in this life, we can simply
look at our genetics and forget past lives to get the same effect.

>And doesn't imply this a certain
>pattern for your life and an appropriate environment you're drawn to
>at the time of conception? Please elucidate what your opinion is on that .
	Yes.  I believe that we have a preview of our coming life
just prior to entering the womb.  This is *not* with certainty, but rather
a preview of likely possibilities.  Why is one person born to a certain
family, if not karma?  Our past-life karma takes the form of genetics.
We are enabled to do this by selecting our parents.  I am also certain
that we enter the womb at conception.


>How does the event of a baby being born from a heroine addicted mother
>fit in in your opinion of karma?
	There is no hard and fast rule here.  Perhaps the desire
for physical expression overcomes the desire for quality?  Perhaps
there is a past bond between the incoming child and the mother?
Of one thing I am certain: the "innocent victims" in this life subconsciously
accept their position as victims.  Modern psychology also agrees with
this.  The only way a car can run into you on the highway, for example,
is if you (subconsciously) let it.


>Some people say: 'roll of the dice', but that's a meaningless phrase to me.
>Who is rolling this dice?
	You are.  You agreed to the dice roll when you let yourself
be born.  "God's will," "karma," "past lives," "genetics," "luck," and "chaos"
are all attempts to explain the unfairness of life.  As Jimmy Carter once
said, "Nobody ever said that life was fair."


>IOW, which consciousnesses are at work here? There is much more behind
>it, but it has never been thoroughly researched IMO. And if it has been done
>none has ever been able to explain these processes clearly to me, if to any
>at all.
	The consciousnesses at work are all subsconscious--there
is constant telepathic communiation going on between every monad
in our human lifewave on Globe D.  Not in words, so much as ideas
and images.  Every victim subconsciously agrees to be such.  Every
person on a doomed airplane, for example, subconsciously agrees
to it.  Death is but a part of life, and life is an intricate dance.

>>Jerry S>Well, I just read an essay by three transpersonal psychologists
>>(David Lukoff, Francis G. Lu, and robert Turner "Diagnosis: A
>>Transpersonal Clinical Approach to religious and Spiritual
>>Problems") in which they mention a study that found that from
>>30 to 40 percent of all Americans have had a mystical experience.
>
>How or where did you get/find this essay? It looks interesting to me.
	Its in TEXTBOOK OF TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHIATRY
AND PSYCHOLOGY,  B.S. Scotton, A.B. Chinen, & J.R. Battista (eds).
New York: BasicBooks (a div of HarperCollins) 1996.

>> One
>>of the things that transpersonal psychology is doing is
>>helping these people to understand their experiences.
>>Why can't theosophy help?
>	
>Jerry: why don't you give us a start on that?
	I have done so, many times.  But the typical
Theosophical attitude is to ignore it.  Even Eldon says
that Kundalini should be left alone.  The problem is,
a lot of people are having spontaneous Kundalini
rousings.  This brings them to a therapist or shrink,
rather than to a TS.  In point of fact, I doubt that any
TS can help these people much anyway.  The danger
of ignoring Kundalini and the like, is that without
knowledge, you can't help others.  Today, transpersonal
psychology is doing more help than the TSs in this
area (i.e., in the new area of spiritual emergency).


> When I have some spare time for doing some reading on
>transpersonal psychology
>I will certainly do so. Some synthesis with theosophy seems
>appropriate  to me.
	Check out some of Ken Wilber's material.  As Chuck says,
he is a bit dry and tedious at times, but the ideas that he presents
are building a bridge between Theosophy and psychology.


>Right. The 'signs of the time' tell us that we can't ignore NDE and other
>psychic experiences. Theosophists should do well to think this over and
>consider what theosophy can mean to people with this kind of experiences.
	It has helped me, because by studying Theosophy, Magic, and
Occultism, I have built up a worldview that accommodates NDE, Kundalini,
and the like.  But you can't do this by ignoring topics that are relevant
to people nowdays.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Jun 20 19:53:10 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 15:53:10 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606201953.PAA06135@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Directions request/trip report

Just back from vacation, I'm seeing references to alt.theosophy
but not finding it on the web.  Could the kind soul who posted
instructions on finding it repost them?  Three weeks ago I was
too busy thinking about vacation to realize I should save the
directions.

For anyone who is interested:
Santo Domingo was a surprisingly interesting and pleasant
city to visit.  (I chose to go there for the bargain fare and a general
interest in Spanish-speaking countries).  The Dominican middle
class is far larger than I imagined; from my hotel you could
walk for a mile and never leave a very respectable,
well-manicured, safe part of the city.  The historic district
has dozens of 16th-17th century buildings, well-preserved and
often accessible as museums.  There were 11 museums in all that
I saw, as well as impressive national zoo, aquarium, and
botanical gardens.  Dominicans are very friendly, but their
Spanish was a bit hard to follow, compared to Mexican, since
they drop the letter s often.  The food is diverse, inexpensive
and tasty.  My only complaints are that the country is so
dominated by tourism that there are always Dominicans offering
to guide you somewhere, and that the refuse collection was not
up to American standards.

How has alt.theosophy been doing in its first month of
existence?
From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 21:54:46 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:54:46 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620215446.006705c8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Blavatsky's Prophecy and Krishnamurti

A message with this title has appeared both on "theos-list" and "alt.
theosophy" several times lately so I would assume everyone who is interested
in the subject has read it and I shan't re-print it.

With all due respect and affection for Mr. Ramadoss. It is clear to me (at
least) that his enormous affection and admiration of Krishnamurti has
blinded him completely and he hasn't allowed reality to intrude on his
enthusiasms. There is simply no possible way in which Mr. Krishnamurti, no
matter how one may view him, can be seen to fulfill Blavatsky's prophesies.

Blavatsky feared greatly, and also prophesied, that The Theosophical Society
would take a "wrong turn" and become a religion (which it has) and therefore
"fade away" (which it is in the process of doing) while theosophy would
continue to go on forever, as it had forever existed.  She said that in any
case the "Great White Brotherhood" would send a new messenger after 1975 in
the "last quarter of the 20th century". That hardly fits Krishnamurti in any
way. His prime notoriety was in the first quarter of the 20th century. By
the time 1975 rolled around his life was drawing to a close.

Mr. Ramadoss comments that Blavatsky had said that the messenger would, if
the society didn't "self-destruct" find an organization "ready and waiting
to serve him". But as Dr Alan Bain so clearly pointed out: "Krishnamurti
walked out on that organization" to which I'd like to add that Krishnamurti
missed no opportunity for the rest of his life to repudiate theosophy.

The place where Mr. Ramadoss goes furthest from reality is in assuming a
world-wide notoriety and fame for Krishnamurti which just never existed. One
of the great problems with small, closed, incestuous societies, of which
Theosophy is a good example, is that, because they generally only
communicate with one another, the members of that closed group make the
entirely false assumption that "everyone" thinks as they do. This is equally
true of all fundamentalist groups. It's why the religious "right" in the USA
is always being surprised by it's relative lack of power. It's why the
people in the "Patriot" and "Militia" movements are always so astonished to
find that most of their fellow-citizens think they're insane.It's really
important to realize that, just as most people have never heard of
Theosophy, even fewer people have ever heard of Krishnamurti. It's probably
safe to say that for every million people who have heard of Michael Jackson
there is one whose heard of Krishnamurti. And for every one that has heard
of Krishnamurti, it must also be acknowledged that very few of them feel
towards Krishnamurti the way Mr. Ramadoss does. Most people found
Krishnamurti rude, arrogant, boring, evasive, dogmatic and uncaring. As a
scholar I have never found anything particularly important in Mr.
Rajagopal's editions of his speeches which are actually all the greatest
majority of his published works seem to be.

No, I don't think Krishnamurti was the "World Teacher", nor did he give any
indications of fitting any rational definition of "Adept hood". I respect,
like, and admire Mr. Ramadoss, but i am afraid that Jiddu Krishnamurti was
no Messiah.

alexis dolgorukii

From coallen@cris.com Thu Jun 20 21:02:48 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606202102.RAA23929@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Directions request/trip report

At 03:56 PM 6/20/96 -0400, K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>Just back from vacation, I'm seeing references to alt.theosophy
>but not finding it on the web.  Could the kind soul who posted
>instructions on finding it repost them?  Three weeks ago I was
>too busy thinking about vacation to realize I should save the
>directions.
>
I'm not the one who posted the original directions, but you should be able
to get to it by just subscribing to alt.theosophy.  If you let me know what
OS & program your using, I could give you more precise intructions.

>How has alt.theosophy been doing in its first month of
>existence?
>
Not much activity on it- yet anyway :)

Chris

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 21:56:11 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:56:11 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620215611.006ba2c4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

In my very first message, I mentioned that in my view there was a very broad
chasm that has developed between those of us (admittedly a minority) who
view theosophy as a process, and those who see Theosophy as based on a "Core
Doctrine" which brings it very close to a religion.
Now as we know this is a development very much feared by HPB who said that
"If theosophy takes a wrong turn and becomes a religion, it is doomed."

Today there is a message on this list from Christopher Allen who is
lamenting a lack of "Core Doctrines" being taught in the vicinity of the
American Headquarters.The chasm is clearly there, and so I thought I would
provide a definition of "theosophy as process" for those who have perhaps
never before thought of it that way.

What was it that made those of us who view theosophy as a process
theosophists? It was four things. The motto of the society: "There is no
Religion Higher than Truth" (SATYAT-NASTI-PARO-DHARMA) and The Three
Objects". I'll assume everyone knows what those are and therefore not use up
space re-typing them.

Now to us, it seems that in the process of utilizing the fullest efforts at
the three objects one arrives eventually at a synthesis of all three objects
which is, at least, an approximation of "truth." This is particularly valid
if one accepts that "reality" is the only true definition of "truth".

Theosophy, therefore is a process of self-transformation, through personal
action. Now as the three objects are what they are, and as the first of the
objects essentially entails helping to bring about a condition of planetary
amity and planetary equality and those conditions require absolute liberty,
it means and requires far more than sitting around and meditating or reading
theosophical books. It absolutely requires action out in the world to bring
about the desired conditions. the thing I call "theosophy as process"
creates a thing I call "theosophists as transactional activists". Yelena
Blavatskaya was a radical revolutionary and an iconoclast, and so too is the
activist theosophist.

One might interpret the second object as an injunction to "ivory tower
intellectuality". But that's not how I see it,  the process is comparative
and synthesizing. It's an activist approach to the study and comparisons of
religions, philosophies, and all the sciences in an inter and intra
disciplinary manner. Each discipline compared with others like it and then
cross-disciplinary comparison.

And lastly, and most important of all if the others are to be realized: an
attempt to become aware of the greater reality outside of physical reality
by way of a personal quest of paranormality.

All of this is active, all of this is radical, all of this is revolutionary.
I view myself as a philosophical and theological anarchist, I view Yelena
Blavatskaya as a philosophical and theological anarchist too.

If Theosophy (note the big "T") devolves into a study group devoted entirely
to the reading and re-reading of a few old books, which may or may not be in
any way valid in our temporal context, and devotes itself to the religious
view of those books and the iconization of their authors, then as HPB
predicted, her movement is dead.

Alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 20 21:56:58 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:56:58 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620215658.006c33d4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: THEOSOPHY AND THE NAZIS

In a recent message, correspondent "GLT" asked a question regarding Adolf
Hitler and Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. The correspondent had seen a
television documentary which strongly implied a connection between Blavatsky
and Hitler. I too, saw the documentary in question: "The Occult History of
The Third Reich", and like almost all television "documentaries" it was
shallow and superficial and wrong on most counts. The writer of this message
is a Cousin of Helena Blavatsky's, and is currently researching a book to be
called "The Hackenkreuz Connection": Theosophy and Nazism. I'd like to share
some of my very preliminary findings with you.

Now let's get down to a less superficial discussion of the subject. First
was there a "connection" between Hitler and HPB? No, of course not she died
in 1891 and he was born in 1889, it's the same as with Hitler's alleged
connection with Richard Wagner who died in 1883. Hitler liked Wagner's
music, he also liked Franz Lehar's music and Anton Bruckner was his
"favorite" composer, but that is entirely irrelevant to Hitler's activities
as Head of the German State.

As far as I know the first intimations of a connection between Blavatsky's
book "The Secret Doctrine", and the Nazis Racial Theories was made in a book
called "MORNING OF THE MAGICIANS", written by Louis Pauwels and Jacques
Bergier (Published in France in 1960, and in soft-cover in The USA by Avon
in 1964). These two investigators alleged, probably not incorrectly that the
"Secret Doctrine" and other Theosophical Writings had to some degree
influenced the Nazis.

Now, I have two questions, which I deem of importance to ask: 1. If Hitler
was an "avid admirer" of Madame Blavatsky, and therefore by inference of
Theosophy, why was the Theosophical society outlawed in Germany shortly
after Hitler's accession to power? 2. If Hitler was "inspired" by Theosophy,
why is it so many Theosophists were sent to Concentration Camps?

On the other hand, it would be completely inaccurate to deny that any tie
exists between "Theosophy" and The Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in
Italy. My research thus far indicates that it is not merely a philosophical
tie, but an actual "overlap" of members. I do, however, believe that the
average Theosophist was utterly ignorant of this connection and would have
been horrified by it. Blavatsky herself was a social radical and
revolutionary who was a close associate of Garibaldi's, and based upon her
personal writings, she would have been a rabid anti-Nazi. But she was dead a
long time before the Nazis began to appear. There were, however other
important Theosophists we were tied to organizations which were clearly
connected to the Nazis.

Let's look at Hitler's "sources". It's pretty clear that his primary source
was Friedrich Nietzsche's "Uebermensch" or "Superman" theories, or more
accurately, Nietzsche's sister's version of them. But Hitler was also very
heavily influenced by the work of Guido von List, who had founded a
Pan-Germanic Political faction with occult roots in 1909. There is no
question but that he was heavily influenced by both The Golden Dawn and
Theosophy. He also followed in a tradition founded in "The Vehm" which was
an Occult group active in Austria-Bavaria in the mid 19th century but which
(as usual) claimed an origin in the middle ages. It was apparently involved
in many totally illegal activities including ritual murder.

The Vehm apparently transmogrified into a number of other organizations. One
was the so-called "Free Masonic Order of the Golden Centurium" which was an
openly Daemonological Group. The Vehm was also the source of another
organization, this one particularly significant because of the later work
and connections of some of it's adherents. It was The Saturnian Order and it
was founded by a man names Joseph Maria Hoene-Wronski (1776-1853) who was
the essential and basic teacher of a man named Alphonse Louis Constant but
who is known to us primarily as Eliphas Levi and who is the most important
source of Qabbalistic teachings in the modern world. He was a close personal
friend of Madame Blavatsky. There was also a Group called "The Vril" and
then you had as an outgrowth of "The Vril" ..."The Order of The Illuminatii"
whose founder (at that point in history) was a man named Theodore Reuess who
went on to found the OTO (Order of the Temples of The East) and this is the
organization that gives us some surprising connections. Not only was it the
source of Aleister Crowley's Order of Thelema (originally a Saturnian
concept) but Win Wescott was closely associated with it. He was the Founder
of "The Order of The Golden Dawn" which had so many Theosophists and
ex=theosophists as members (and Aleister Crowley as well) that it has always
been considered an outgrowth of the theosophical Society. Among the other
important people associated with the OTO was Dr.Rudolf Steiner, the General
Secretary of the theosophical Society in German, who went on to found the
Anthroposophical Movement. He was, by the way, considered by Hitler to be a
major enemy. And lastly, the most important connection as it concerns the
Theosophical society. Dr. Franz Hartmann who was a very important
theosophist indeed, having been an associate of Blavatsky's and also a very
close associate of both Annie Besant and Charles Webster Leadbeater.

Lastly in this terribly short sample, there is some evidence that Annie
Besant was associated with Dr. & Baron, Julius Evola (Who was charged as a
War Criminal in 1945) and through Evola with Benito Mussolini, "Il Duce".
She arranged for Mussolini to write articles for her magazine "Star of The
Herald of the East", which was the organ of the group designed to support
the "Messiahship" of Jiddu Krishnamurti (who had absolutely nothing to do
with all this as he was just a child). Copies are on file in both the
Library of the American Theosophical Society in Olcott, Wheaton, Illinois
and in The Library in Adyar India. I am sure they are also on file
elsewhere. But Mussolini's articles can be read by anyone who chooses to
look them up. This is not a connection I think healthy for The Theosophical
Society. Considering Annie Besant's immense authoritarianism, one is forced
to wonder what other qualities she shared with the Fascists? There is
another very questionable connection here. Julius Evola was the primary
disciple of Rene Guenon who wrote a book so critical of theosophy that it
almost completely destroyed The Theosophical Movement in France. What was
Annie Besant doing being a close associate of Evola who was the closest
associate of a man who was on of the theosophical movement's greatest
enemies. Why too, were other very close associates of both Evola and Guenon,
like Alain Danielou and Raymond Burnier (ex husband of the present
International President of The Theosophical Society) so closely identified
with Theosophy and Adyar in particular?

It's going to take a long while to fully research this subject but I hope
this helps people deal with GTL's question.

alexis dolgorukii

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 20 23:00:38 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:00:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Directions request/trip report
In-Reply-To: <199606201953.PAA06135@leo.vsla.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Paul:
Glad to see you back and the concise report on your visit.

You need to contact the Internet Provider to make sure they pick up the
newsgroup. Some providers are selective in what is being picked up.



_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 20 16:16:17 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:16:17 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960620061027.006c12ac@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960620061027.006c12ac@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>What is "truth"? Well the motto of theosophy is
>"There is no religion higher than truth" so perhaps it's our mission to try
>to find out what it really is. I think that a goodly proportion of HPB's
>words and actions were intended to motivate us into doing so.
>Finding out what "truth" really is, is theosophy as a process.
>>>>

Whether she intended this or not - though I suspect she did - I see no
realistic alternative.  If there is a Society with such a motto, then
perhaps it should have a single object - the seek out the truth
*wherever* it may be found, as HPB seems to have tried to do herself.
She clearly had a number of advisors, and whther she went to Tibet or
not may not even be that relevant.  For example, suppose the Tibetans
("Masters" or otherwise) did *not* have the truth?

Also, if there is a Society with such a motto, THE WORLD AT LARGE WILL
JUDGE IT BY ITS ADHERENCE TO ITS MOTTO.

Sorry to shout, but sometimes my placid Taurean nature gets fed up with
observing that people simply do not see what is right under their noses.
(Nothing personal).

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 Jun 20 16:04:16 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:04:16 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma
In-Reply-To: <960619214111_417759586@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960619214111_417759586@emout19.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Alan,
>Very true, most of the TSers I deal with are very happy having absolutely
>nothing to do with either the LCC or Co-Masonry.
>
>Chuck

.. and vice-versa! ?

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 Jun 20 16:09:14 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:09:14 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <9606200338.AA17535@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606200338.AA17535@alpinet.net>, Bjorn Roxendal
 writes
>Jesus said "My sheep know my voice". But, that may not help you, since he
>didn't say "My volwes know my voice".
>
>Bjorn

Cheeky! You may get your wrist slapped :-)

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 Jun 20 22:41:55 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:41:55 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960620064721.006cb35c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960620064721.006cb35c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>>Perhpas he was one of the "wolves" eh Bjorn? But in any case, as you know,
>I don't believe that the Jesus you talk about was a real person, or even a
>real egregore, so your response is irrelevant as usual.
>alexis
>
And Alan playfully butts in:

Sometimes, Alexis, I suspect that the many things you don't believe in
make up a whole new religion all of their own!

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 Jun 20 23:55:37 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:55:37 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620195537_221715255@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
True, there is no substitute for sitting down to dinner with friends.  But
consider this.  People who meet on the net very often meet in real life as
well.  I just spent an entire weekend with people who started that way.
My point is that the large organizational structures are pretty irrelevant in
such a world.  People no longer need them.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 23:56:15 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:56:15 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620195614_221715292@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
Oh, I think that Jesus would certainly be a real egregore.
Consider you have a focus for the beliefs of oodles of people for a couple of
thousand years.  That can create one hell of a godform.
Besides, I can't think of a teacher who was more egregious than Jesus.  If
ever someone deserved to be crucified...

Chuck the Heretic MTI, FTSA
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 23:56:17 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:56:17 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620195616_221715361@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Alex,
The problem is that you would be too classy at doing it.  Now I would make
sure that they were all properly implanted with a little microchip and had
three sixes tatooed on their foreheads so that they would be unable to be
unhappy.  That way the peasants would not revolt, no matter how revolting
they may actually be.
After all, when people vote, they might vote for the wrong person, so the
idea is to make sure that they don't have the opportunity to make that
mistake.

Chuck the Heretic  MTI, FTSA
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 20 23:59:54 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:59:54 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620195954_221717699@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Directions request/trip report

Paul,
alt.theosophy is growing slowly, largely due to the time it takes for servers
to pick it up.  The small, local ones, like the one I am going with, had it
right away, but the rest, they have snails in their machinery.  As it gets
better known, it will undoubtedly attract more attention.
Be assured the powers that be know about it.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 21 00:04:26 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:04:26 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620200425_221720929@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

Alex,
Fortunately there are enough of us theosophists out here who know that cores
are strictly for apples.  The older writings contain interesting and often
useful ideas, but other than that have no authority.

Chuck the Heretic MTI, FTSA
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 21 00:08:17 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:08:17 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960620200816_221723502@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AND THE NAZIS

Alex,
Looks like fun.  Did you see my posting to alt.theosophy about the Nazi
question.  It pretty much echoes you.

Chuck the Heretic MTI, FTSA
From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri Jun 21 00:29:38 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:29:38 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606210029.AA21872@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Re: TSA bad karma


>In message <9606172150.AA20053@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry
>Hejka-Ekins
> writes
>>2. The complete dissociation of the TS from the Liberal
>>Catholic Church and Co-Masonry.  The relationship of the TS to
>>these organizations should be put on the same bases that we
>>have with any other religion or fraternal organization.

>Jerry - I dunno about the US, but in the UK the link between
>these three is tenuous to say the least.  As a "lapsed" co-mason
>I know that in my own CM lodge only 2 others were also members
>of the TS, and only one was active.  In the LCC in this country,
>some clergy are also members of the other two, but the TS does
>not seem to take any notice of their non-TS affiliations in any
>relevant ways.
>
>Neither the LCC not the Co-masons here seem to take any notice
>of the TS whatsoever - they have in effect become separate
>organisations.
>
>Alan

Alan,  you are right, the LCC and Co-Masonry have their own
membership and the link is "tenuous."   However, on another
level, because of AB's and CWL's roles in establishing them, the
ES, ER, LCC and Co-Masonry affiliations still form the route
through which one moves to the inner circle of the TS.  This is
why I asked for the dissolution of the first two and the genuine
dissociation of the TS from second two.  The "tenuous" link of
the LCC and Co-Masonry to the TS is in another sense far from
tenuous.  I fear that the dissolution of the ES and ER might not
be enough, because the other two organizations form a part of
that (IMO) pseudo-esoteric structure that is supposed to bring
the elect into the work of the "inner government."  Unless the
dissociation is genuine, the LCC and Co-masonry organizations
have the potential of remaining as part of this inner circle
structure.  I say, if we are going to dump the neo-theosophical
(IMO) nonsense, then let's make a clean break of it.

To better make my point concerning this no-so-tenuous-connection;
did you know that the Co-Masonic Headquarters in Larkspur
Colorado are currently involved in a legal suit with the TS?  To
better make my point, I might ask the question:  Do you think it
a mere coincidence that Joy Mills and Radha Burnier have come to
the United States just as this legal suit was scheduled to go to
court?

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 Jun 21 00:30:59 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:30:59 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Unveiled Isis


A
>Could you give the references in gospels that prove that
>synoptics and John'gospel has a "decided discrepancy" about
>duration of Jesus'ministry? I couldn't find such discrepancy.

JHE
No.  I'm not a very strong student in the Bible.  Though we read
the Bible in our theosophical study groups, this question hasn't
come up.  Since HPB doesn't back up her statement with examples,
I suspect that it was a common and accepted notion among higher
criticism biblical scholars in her day.  Perhaps Alan Bain might
be aware of what this conclusion was based.

A
>So Pilate governed Judae during last ten years of emperor
>Tiberius, that governed during twenty-two years 14-37AD. As
>gospels says that Jesus was dead under Pilate, so he died before
>37AD....

JHE
As you get deeper into HPB, you will find that her ideas
concerning Jesus are quite radical from a Christian point of
view.  In ISIS UNVEILED, she makes a distinction between the
biblical, the theological, and the historical Jesus.  Unless, you
keep this in mind, it is very easy to become confused as to which
Jesus she is talking about.  HPB's historical Jesus lived about
100 years earlier than the Biblical Jesus, and did not know
Pilate or John the Baptist.  Her biblical Jesus is built from
traditions and revelations of early Christian communities not
contemporary to Jesus.  In other words, she would say that the
books "according to" Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not
written by the above named people, nor are they their real
testimony.  The theological Jesus, of course is the one the
churches have evolved over the centuries.  HPB's evidence is
compelling enough to create doubt among non-religious biblical
scholars, but as she readily admits, is far from conclusive.  You
may already be aware that the oldest New Testament documents are
the Letters of Paul, not the Gospels.  HPB leans heavily on
Paul's accounts (while warning about interpolations), as well as
accounts from Jewish and certain Gnostic sources.

JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------


    .

From coallen@cris.com Fri Jun 21 01:06:13 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 21:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606210106.VAA17328@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 06:20 PM 6/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In my very first message, I mentioned that in my view there was a very broad
>chasm that has developed between those of us (admittedly a minority) who
>view theosophy as a process, and those who see Theosophy as based on a "Core
>Doctrine" which brings it very close to a religion.
>Now as we know this is a development very much feared by HPB who said that
>"If theosophy takes a wrong turn and becomes a religion, it is doomed."

That's a very interesting point.  By this definition one could call Physics
a religion, and to many, it is just that.  I view Theosophy as more than
just a set of core doctrines.  It is a process, but that doesn't invalidate
the core, underlying truths that the founders Unveiled.

My own personal definition of religion involves some deep, reverant
adoration of a supreme deity(ies).  Anything other than that is a science.
I think we may have a problem the day Theosophists start worshiping the
Solar Logos- but I see no problem with the acknowledgement of such entities.

>Today there is a message on this list from Christopher Allen who is
>lamenting a lack of "Core Doctrines" being taught in the vicinity of the

Actually I was upset by the fact that I couldn't locate a group that
discussed the writings of Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Beseant, etc.  I wanted to
understand more of what these writers had to say.  Personally, I found the
Secret Doctrine rather complicated and confusing the first several times of
reading it.  Come to think of it, I still find it rather confusing at times. :-)

>What was it that made those of us who view theosophy as a process
>theosophists? It was four things. The motto of the society: "There is no
>Religion Higher than Truth" (SATYAT-NASTI-PARO-DHARMA) and The Three

Another important aspect resides in the underlying truth common between all
major world religions.  This underlying truth being examined in many of the
"core doctrines" (maybe writings would be a better word).

>Theosophy, therefore is a process of self-transformation, through personal
>action. Now as the three objects are what they are, and as the first of the

Personally I view Theosophy as a way of looking at life, not necessarily the
process through which one lives it.  I think that the religion one may or
may not hold dictates how one lives their life.  I view it this way because
theosophy is *not* a religion, but rather, a set of underlying truths
(explained in the core writings) that tie various religions together.  Hence
the reason that any creed could join- because it held none of it's own.

>objects essentially entails helping to bring about a condition of planetary
>amity and planetary equality and those conditions require absolute liberty,
>it means and requires far more than sitting around and meditating or reading
>theosophical books. It absolutely requires action out in the world to bring
>about the desired conditions. the thing I call "theosophy as process"
>creates a thing I call "theosophists as transactional activists". Yelena

I see it a little differently.  I view the internal, self-transformation,
one goes through as the cause of the outward effect of world-wide harmony
and peace.  Of course this requires everyone to participate ;-)

>One might interpret the second object as an injunction to "ivory tower
>intellectuality". But that's not how I see it,  the process is comparative
>and synthesizing. It's an activist approach to the study and comparisons of
>religions, philosophies, and all the sciences in an inter and intra
>disciplinary manner. Each discipline compared with others like it and then
>cross-disciplinary comparison.

My thoughts exactly.  And what I term the Core Doctrines are the thoughts,
opinions, and findings of those Theosophists who came before us.  It was how
they perceived life, outwardly and inwardly.

>And lastly, and most important of all if the others are to be realized: an
>attempt to become aware of the greater reality outside of physical reality
>by way of a personal quest of paranormality.

Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
I may say so :-)

>All of this is active, all of this is radical, all of this is revolutionary.
>I view myself as a philosophical and theological anarchist, I view Yelena
>Blavatskaya as a philosophical and theological anarchist too.

How is this viewpoint revolutionary with respect to the Theosophist?  Not a
flame, just curious.

>If Theosophy (note the big "T") devolves into a study group devoted entirely
>to the reading and re-reading of a few old books, which may or may not be in
>any way valid in our temporal context, and devotes itself to the religious
>view of those books and the iconization of their authors, then as HPB
>predicted, her movement is dead.

A good process to work on is to understand the underlying truth given out in
these doctrines and writings as they relate to current society.  They're as
equally valid now as they were then, and in my opinion, will be valid
through the next age.  If you read Blavatsky's Cosmogenesis, it spans
Aeons...if one happens to follow that particular writing of hers, the whole
belief system has been around for quite some time ;-)

Sincerely,
Christopher Allen

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Jun 21 04:24:50 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:24:50 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CA2412.6E1E@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: TSA/Adyar -- bad Karma
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> >I am still lurking around the fringe and now that the 'bad karma' has spread
> >to here too, I will stick my neck out again.
> >I agree with what Alan says to a point as there are a few of us who left
> >theos-l because of the lack of brotherhood in general.
> >I would like to ask how many of the unhappy dissidents are active members of
> >a Lodge?
>
> Well I was, but they kicked me off the committee illegally, and attempts
> were made to kick me out of the Lodge, but I transferred to "unattached"
> to avoid this before they got even nastier ...
>
> > From what I gathered not many. What make you think that the powers
> >that be are going to take any notice of all your fist shaking and finger
> >pointing?
>
> None at all - I have done exactly what was wanted of me!
>
> > It is easier to do that than to find a constructive alternative.
> >You have already established your presence on the Internet which Adyar etc
> >have not. What are you doing with it except squabble and turn off anyone who
> >may be looking for theosophy as a meaningful way of life. You have created TI
> >but I have not seen it used to give theosophy a real presence in cyberspace.
>
> A good point.  A recent attempt to get opinions re amending the TI
> "First Object" failed due to the low level of response .....

I wonder just how important it is to amend anything at this stage, perhaps
that is why you have had so little response. As I lay about in bed I thought
some thoughts to starve off sheer boredom. Firstly I reckon a cyber-committee
of about 6 should be elected and given the ok to discuss and organise an
elementary TS structure among themselves. As long as the list of com members
and their e-mail addresses are posted then the rest can contact someone to
find out anything that is worrying them before rushing into public debate
with it. The biggest problem facing any new venture is IMO nitpicking. If
this can be done in private consultation then it saves a lot of frustration
all around. I personally think that Alan should be overall co-ordinator
because someone has to see to it that the e-mails gets to the appropriate
person for a reply. It is important that everyone is replied to and their
concerns are addressed. They may not be solvable but at least they are not
ignored.
Another idea would be for these com members to take a few names and e-mail
addresses of the lurkers and have a chat to them all and see what talents are
out there and what their interests are and maybe put them in touch with
someone who shares their interest. There should be more respect for
individual preferences so that people can feel able to discuss e.g Leadbeater
without getting negative comments directed at them by persons who do not like
 the discussion. Those persons should just ignore that particular thread and
join in ones that suit them. There was not really freedom of discussion
because there were invisible barriers set in place by the criticism directed
at no-no topics.
There are some of you with scanners who do a great job and much more could be
done in that area with a bit of co-ordination from a committee.
My server has not been able to get alt.theosophy for me yet but real
discussion on there may be a problem because all the nuts in the world seem
to love hassling anything alternative and some of them get plain crude about
it. I read the Tibetan Buddhist one and some of the headers are disgusting.
So just wait till alt. theosophy reaches the common newsgroup lists and see
if it can avoid some of that.
Just as well I have run out of energy for now.
Will have another nap and see what else arises.
Bee

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 21 06:30:05 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:30:05 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960621063005.006be508@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Adyar/TSA -- Bad Karma

At 08:38 PM 6/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>I can't see any group that enjoys the exercise of power doing such
>things voluntarily.  The phase of which you speak hasn't come cheap, has
>it?  There has been a lot of fighting and killing, and the phase is only
>yet in its infancy, IMO.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>That Alan, is sadly all too true. No, it hasn't come cheaply and I fear it
won't come cheaply in this instance either. I have made a prediction if this
regard and this is it: The political systems on this planet, will, for the
most part,break down into various ethnic and regional segments. These
breakdowns will be empowered by age-old resentments and malignant
nationalism and ethnism. We see this in connection with Wales, Scotland and
cornwall in your country, in Bavaria and Saxony in Germany, and in Normandy
and Brittany in France. In Italy it's North vs south, We've all seen the
catastrophe in the Balkans, and The Soviet Union has broken down into its
component parts. The United States will not be free of this phenomenon. It
is too far from homogeneous to be spared, and there are too many regional
and ethnic anxieties.

All major National entities came together as a result of conquest,
oppression, and coercion. The bonds that held them together are loosening,
and we shall have the careless birth of totally un viable National entities
(like Slovakia). In time these people will get over their resentments and
realize that survival is more important than either pride or hatred and a
synergistic phase will begin. But it will take time.

The same fragmenting impetus is occurring in organizations too.

alexis dolgorukii

From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Jun 21 13:39:12 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:39:12 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606211444.KAA20763@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: re: Yours of 18/VI

>To: liesel@dreamscape.com
>Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:20:38 +0300
>From: Kay Ziatz 
>Reply-To: Kay Ziatz 
>Subject: re: Yours of 18/VI
>
>Hello!
> l > yesterday and today. So maybe they'll tell me tomorrow.
>You may not harry. Anyway, it will take time for me to know how to
>transfer
>the money. Our financial system isn't so developed yet as in USA ;)
>
> l > We have a small library a few blocks from my house, which
>Do you provide theosophical book for this library?
>I think schoolboys may be more perceptive for theosophical ideas because
>they have less prejudices and "gestalts".
>
> l > They haven't caught on to Theosophy from you as yet.
>I don't try still to force the process. Some theosophists here think
>that books like "Secret doctrine" & "Mahatma letters" should be leaved as
>"service documentation" for private use, and when we talk to people we
>try to use more common books like Bible or Bhagavad-gita, giving them
>a theosophical interpretation. Here's a strong prejudice against theosophy
>and reaction of some people to the name of Blavatsky is similiar to bull's
>reaction to a red muleta. But the same people accept these teachings when
>we speal it out as our own opinion.
>
> l > better, if the workers didn't have someone standing over them to tell
>Bailey writes that one of Mahatmas is monitoring & directing workers move-
>ment. Also she writes that Communism, Socialism and Democracy are three
>different aspects of one thing and they should come to compromise.
>
> l > I think Lenin was too Machiavellian, and
>I know very little of Machiavelli. BTW, here in Moscow recently opened a
>little monument to him. Anyway, Lenin's theory & praxis didn't match.
>In USSR state played main role in all affairs, but in his basic work
>"State & revolution" Lenin wrote that communism and state are incompatible
>things. "State is an apparatus for exploating one class by another" (Thus
>said Marx or Lenin - i forgot). But it's a wrong idea that Lenin was a
>good man and Stalin spoiled his work. I've recently read in newspaper that
>a quantity of Lenin's victims were 3 times greater than Pol-Pot's in Cam-
>bodia. He ordered to close all theaters. Full cultural life was restored
>in early Stalin times (1924-30). After a war 1941-45 Stalin changed ideo-
>logy to national-socialist. He prohibited jazz, etc. So in 1949-85 young
>people were angry mostly not because of lack of meal and human rights
>breaking, but because of constant campaigns against jazz, rock'n'roll,
>hard rock, jeans, etc. The only bonus was that ugly contemporary archi-
>tecture penetrated to USSR only after 1960, althrough it practiced ab-
>road since 1920's.
>
> l> was altogether crazy. Looks like Yeltsin is going to make it. He's
>already
> l> negotiating with L (I forget ihis name ... the man who came in third.)
>You mean general Lebedh? Most people here think that it's very good
>alliance.
>I think american TV & papers draw him as dangerous nationalist, but he's
>not. I've seen some american TV programms - they remind soviet TV of
>70s-80s.
>I don't mean the style, althrough sometimes it similiar, too, but a prin-
>ciple of information filtering. I don't know about domestic TV services, i
>mean big networks like CNN. Returning to Lebedh - his economical programme
>was most liberal of all: state will not rule economy, it has only to
>collect
>taxes & provide security. Lebedh stopped war conflict in Moldavia. It was
>only success of all similiar conflicts - in Yugoslavia, Chechnia, etc.
>It's true - maybe Lebedh is very simple man, (have you seen TV series
>"Sledge Hammer"?) Yes, he's patriot, but he's not a nationalist. We
>hope that he could decrease corruption. In first two days of this partner-
>ship four most odious people were displaced - minister of defence, chief
>of KGB, chief of security councel and chief of presidents bodyguards. I
>know many people in the west apologize Gorbachov, but what have he done?
>Suppose, you live in USA, it's still superpower, but it's not all right
>with economy (like before Reagan, but a bit worse). New president comes
>and after his rule California declares independence, in Texas begins war,
>meal products desappear, Canada and Mexico join Warsaw pact. All foreign
>markets lost, USA converts to a 3-rd world country. How do you think,
>will people be grateful? :)  Of course, he introduced some freedoms
>and human rights, but it doesn't matter to paisants, workers, etc.
>My chief and other people in my workingplace voted for Lebedh, because
>they hate Yeltzin & Gorbachov for decreasing scientific programms support.
>They dont wanna return of communists, too. Who remains? Nazi Zhirinovsky?
>(Yavlinsky isn't very popular for splitting democrates).
>
>Oh, i have to end my long letter because now 2.40 a.m. & i wanna sleep...

From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 21 04:46:03 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:46:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960620234847.2f572300@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Blavatsky's Prophecy and Krishnamurti

At 05:51 PM 6/20/96 -0400, Alexis wrote:
>A message with this title has appeared both on "theos-list" and "alt.
>theosophy" several times lately so I would assume everyone who is interested
>in the subject has read it and I shan't re-print it.
>
>With all due respect and affection for Mr. Ramadoss. It is clear to me (at
>least) that his enormous affection and admiration of Krishnamurti has
>blinded him completely and he hasn't allowed reality to intrude on his
>enthusiasms. There is simply no possible way in which Mr. Krishnamurti, no
>matter how one may view him, can be seen to fulfill Blavatsky's prophesies.
>>>>Clip>>>>

When I posted the quote from HPB in Key to Theosophy, I commented on the
following possibilities:

1. HPB was wrong in expecting the Messenger in last quarter of this century.
If this is true then there is no need to for any discussion.

2. If HPB was right in her expectation that a Messenger will come in the
last quarter of this century, based on what she stated, it appears that JK's
role seems to fit. As for timing, even though he made his famous "Truth is a
Pathless Land" statement and that Truth cannot be put in a box in twenties,
his was very active in sixties onwards. Much of the current publications and
videos and audios were published after this time. Again there is the
possibility that the last quarter of the century may not be a rigidly fixed
point in time. So it could be little earlier or little later. With all due
respects to Mr. dolgorukii's reasoning, I think if JK had made a
pronouncement that he is the Messaiah, it is quite possible that instead of
crucifiction, some crazy person might have shot him dead.

If HPB was right in her statement, I am yet to find another person who fits
the description that she gave in the Key to Theosophy. If someone knows of
another person who fits HPB's prediction, then we should look into it. There
is yet another possibility. May be the timing of the coming of the Messenger
may still take place before the end of this century.

So in these matters no one can be 100% certain. Only we can speculate.
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 21 06:18:20 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:18:20 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960621061820.006b5a90@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: THEOSOPHY AND THE NAZIS - II

I have long been wondering how Annie Besant, the friend (Mistress for 12
years) of George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fenian socialist Movement,
and famous Liberal, became associated with Julius D'Evola who was a very
High Ranking Fascist, a close associate of Rene Guenon who was a principle
enemy of the theosophical movement, and like so many other people associated
with Guenon, a homosexual, and like many of his associates deeply involved
in anti-altruistic magic. I think Besant was a dupe, an innocent dupe.

There's a name which turns up with amazing frequency in the biographies of
many important members of the Thule Group and The Nazi Party. That name is
Theodore Reuss, who founded the so-called "Order of Illuminatii" (though it
had no connection whatsoever with the original which was founded by Adam
Weishaupt in 1776), Reuss was also one of the founders of the Egyptian Rite
(probably spurious) Masonic Orders which eventually merged into the OTO. We
already know that Reuss was associated with Franz Hartmann and Rudolf
Steiner but now I find there was another OTO connection. Both Bishops James
Wedgewood and George Arundale were members of the faction of the OTO
connected with the Saturnian Order and regularly engaged in sexual magic.
They were the people who connected Besant with Evola.

Now, at the same time, there was a man named Vyvyan Deacon, who was a
spiritualist medium and a descendent of Robert Browning the Poet.He was
associated with CWL in the early days of CWL's psychic career, Deacon was
also the head of the OTO in australia when Leadbeater was in residence there
and had a "retreat house" outside of sydney near where Leadbeater also had a
summer residence. Vyvyan Deacon and James Wedgewood were the links joining
Leadbeater with the history of sexual magic in the West. Deacon was a member
of the T.S., the E.S., the order of the Star, and The Old Catholic Church
(which became the LCC).

This is a mass of connected and very curious information. It will, as I said
earlier take me a long time to "make sense" out of it. But I do think there
are connections established which should never have happened. I started this
because I was utterly horrified by any implication of a connection between
Theosophy and Nazism/Fascism as I bear a tremendous animus against those
organizations and the people in them. When the Allied Armies entered the
Concentration Camps at the end of World War II, my Father was with them,
and, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, I was with him. I was
10 years old. I will never in this life forgive the Nazis/Fascists for what
I saw there.

I certainly can't say that a connection has been proved without any doubt,
but I also cannot say that the connection can be disproved without a doubt.

There is a real "mystery" here and I intend to get to the bottom of it.

alexis dolgorukii

From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 21 17:24:57 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:24:57 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960621132454_561175642@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TSA bad Karma

Alan,.
Probably, if they have any sense.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 21 17:31:47 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:31:47 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960621133145_561180382@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AND THE NAZIS - II

Alex,
As the Mole said the the Deacon while walking through the graveyard:
"We must dig deep and leave no stone unturned."

Chuck
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Jun 21 18:27:12 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 14:27:12 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606211827.OAA26363@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Two reviews of interest

While exploring some online databases, I came across two
citations of interest to theos-l readers (some, anyway):

On 2/29/96, Nature published an article by Walter Gratzer
called "It's no go Blavatsky," which turns out to be a review
of James Randi's Encyclopedia of Lies, Frauds and Hoaxes of the
Occult, published by St. Martin's last year.  Haven't seen the
book, but now my curiosity is whetted.  I explore Randi's
earlier attack on Cayce in my work in progress.

The second citation is for a review of The Masters Revealed in
a most peculiar place, a journal called Intelligence and
National Security, Vol. 11, Number 1.  I see it is in the
collection of Old Dominion University, and I'm headed east this
weekend, so will soon find out what this is all about.

Cheers
PJ
From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Jun 21 17:56:31 1996
Date:          Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:53:31 -0300
From: 
Subject:       Unveiled Isis
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <16E87F3719@serv.peb.ufrj.br>

Hello Jerry,

I said:
>Could you give the references in gospels that prove that
>synoptics and John'gospel has a "decided discrepancy" about
>duration of Jesus'ministry? I couldn't find such discrepancy.

You said:
>Since HPB doesn't back up her statement with examples,
>I suspect that it was a common and accepted notion among higher
>criticism biblical scholars in her day.

It`s clear that sinoptics and John`gospel aren`t in contradiction
about one or three years of duration of Jesus ministry,  as HPB suggests.

I reproduce a catholic text, that you can find at Internet
http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/08377a.htm
at this site http://www.csn.net/advent/ you can find many useful historical
references and papal documents!


(3) The Public Life of Jesus


(a) Duration of the Public Life

There are two extreme views as
 to the length of the ministry of Jesus: St. Irenaeus (Contra Haer.,
 II, xxii, 3-6) appears to suggest a period of fifteen years; the
 prophetic phrases, "the year of recompenses", "the year of my
 redemption" (Is., xxxiv, 8; lxiii, 4), appear to have induced
 Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and
 two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the
 public life. This latter opinion has found advocates among certain
 recent students: von Soden, for instance, defends it in Cheyne's
 "Encyclopaedia Biblica". But the text of the Gospels demands a more
 extensive duration. St. John's Gospel distinctly mentions three
 distinct paschs in the history of Christ's ministry (ii, 13; vi, 4;
 xi, 55). The first of the three occurs shortly after the baptism of
 Jesus, the last coincides with His Passion, so that at least two
 years must have intervened between the two events to give us the
 necessary room for the passover mentioned in vi, 4. Westcott and
 Hort omit the expression "the pasch" in vi, 4 to compress the
 ministry of Jesus within the space of one year; but all the
 manuscripts, the versions, and nearly all the Fathers testify for
 the reading "En de eggysto pascha heeorteton Ioudaion": "Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews,
 was near at hand". Thus far then everything tends to favour the
 view of those writers and more recent commentators who extend the
 period of Christ's ministry a little over two years.


But a comparison of St. John's Gospel with the Synoptic Evangelists
 seems to introduce another pasch, indicated in the Fourth Gospel,
 into Christ's public life. John, iv, 45, relates the return of
 Jesus into Galilee after the first pasch of His public life in
 Jerusalem, and the same event is told by Mark, i, 14, and Luke iv,
 14. Again the pasch mentioned in John, vi, 4 has its parallel in
 the "green grass" of Mark, vi, 39, and in the multiplication of
 loaves as told in Luke, ix, 12 sqq. But the plucking of ears
 mentioned in Mark, ii, 23, and Luke, vi, 1, implies another paschal
 season intervening between those expressly mentioned in John, ii,
 13, and vi, 4. This shows that the public life of Jesus must have
 extended over four paschs, so that it must have lasted three years
 and a few months. Though the Fourth Gospel does not indicate this
 fourth pasch as clearly as the other three, it is not wholly silent
 on the question. The "festival day of the Jews" mentioned in John,
 v, 1, has been identified with the Feast of Pentecost, the Feast of
 Tabernacles, the Feast of Expiation, the Feast of the New Moon, the
 Feast of Purim, the Feast of Dedication, by various commentators;
 others openly confess that they cannot determine to which of the
 Jewish feasts this festival day refers. Nearly all difficulties
 will disappear if the festival day be regarded as the pasch, as both
 the text (heorte) and John, iv, 35 seem to demand (cf. Dublin Review,
 XXIII, 351 sqq.).

Abrantes
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Jun 21 20:27:16 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 16:27:16 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606212027.QAA25111@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Various and Sundry

Comments on today's digest and recent posts:

Re: subscribing to alt.theosophy.  Someone, maybe Martin,
posted a website address through which one could get to the
newsgroup even if one's server didn't carry it.  I feel
unwilling to request anything of the State Library in this
regard, since time on the newsgroup could be considered goofing
off.

Re: Krishnamurti's fame.  I checked WorldCat, the biggest
bibliographic database (OCLC) in catalog format, and found 297
books under the subject J. Krishnamurti.  This includes
multiple editions or translations of the same title.  PB had
341, Edgar Cayce 724, Jesus Christ more than 77,000.  Cayce is
well ahead of major founders of American religious groups like
Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen G. White, but behind Joseph Smith.
In India, I saw K.'s books in every bookstore, and everyone
seemed to know who he was, more so by far than in the West.  So
he did have a big impact, but whether or not it is a lasting
one remains to be seen.

Re: Theosophy as process.  HPB put it this way (pardon my
paraphrase); "Theosophy is the philosophy of rational
explanation of things, not the specific tenets."  And
"Theosophist is as Theosophy does" NOT "Theosophist is as
Theosophy *believes*"-- which I take to mean both attaining
some level of gnosis and transforming your life accordingly.

Re: the individuals being better than the organization.  Isn't
this true everywhere?  In the TSA, it seems particularly so,
but what does this mean?  My guess is that for every step up
the ladder toward becoming an "important Theosophist" one has
to jettison certain values.  Like openness and honesty and
responsiveness to perceived needs.  Those values get supplanted
by values like solidarity with the in-group, secrecy,
manipulativeness, ambition.  It is the way organized Theosophy
has been permeated by secret societies which has brought this
about.  Perhaps one could go so far as to say that the very
qualities of which the movement is most in need are the
qualities most likely to cause a person to be ostracized or at
least marginalized.
From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 21 22:49:41 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:49:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960621224941.006ba6ec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: QABBALAH AND KABALA

No Alan: I am NOT kidding! But let me jog your memory a bit.

Sometime past, Dr. Bain and Dr. Jerry Schueler had a discussion regarding
the proper spelling of the word Qabbalah-Kabala and they arrived at a
tentative agreement that Kabala meant tihe serious intellectual study of
Kabala as philosophy-religion, while Qabbalah or Qabala represented the
Ceremonial Magical aspect of the subject.

Now it is patently clear that when we are talking about KABALA, then Rabbi
Akiba, Scholem, and Kaplan are the paramount experts. But when were are
talking about the ceremonial magic aspects of QABBALAH, it is Eliphas Levi
who is the paramount authority to the "magical community". Israel Regardie
and the other "Masters" of Occult Magic, Aleister Crowley included, would be
much less without Levi's influence.  I consider eliphas Levi to be a far
more important figure in the Ceremonial Magic Community that Aleister
Crowley. Unfortunately Levi is tainted by his connections with Joseph Maria
Hoene-Wronski and Theodore Reuss.

My topic basically is the Occult Roots of Nazism, of this KABALA is entirely
free, but to the Nazis; Qabbalah, which they tended to spell Q'UABBALAH, is
an intrinsic ingredient of their occult background.

alexis dolgorukii

From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 22 00:08:25 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 02:08:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606220008.CAA01403@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: To Paul K. Johnson - reading and posting to alt.theosophy

This is a re-post at the request of PKJ:

At last I found out how people whose service provider doesn't carry
the alt.theosophy newsgroup can *post* to this newsgroup:

 E-mail to alt.theosophy@news.demon.co.uk

(besides that you just fill in the subject line and the actual message)

Demon internet has a so-called E-mail to Usenet gateway, that's why
it works. Plus it carries the alt.theosophy newsgroup on its newsserver.

Typically your message is added to the list of articles in the alt.theosophy
newsgroup on demon internet and then
distributed along with  other new postings to news-servers around the world
that carry this newsgroup. This means that ALL people with E-mail facilities
should normally speaking be able to post to alt.theosophy.


Reading messages can be done by way of Rene's newsgateway

 http://www.spiritweb.org/cgi/newsgateway.cgi?alt.theosophy

Note that the question mark after cgi is obligatory, it's not a typo.

Reading postings should be possible by this method, replying or posting a
new message may not work. But you can use the above mentioned E-mail method.

Martin

From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 22 00:08:29 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 02:08:29 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606220008.CAA01409@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: core teachings & ruminations; Jerry S


Martin>Jerry S: how *does* it work?
	Impersonally as causation.  Good and evil, reward
and punishment, have nothing to do with it.  This is how we
human beings see it most of the time, but karma, like nature,
doesn't care about "sin" and dispensing rewards to human
beings who have been "good."  This is our own psychological
projection.

Yes, I'd agree on that. Leaves still the question:
what forces/consciousnesses/substances are involved in this causation?

> Let me ask you another question: how did your character you had at birth
come into existence? I don't think you believe in the 'tabula rasa' concept
of human character, do you?
	No, I don't.  Nor did Jung.  I agree with Jung that the psyche
pre-exists birth.  It is the conscious ego that is born and grows and
finally dies.

agreed, if you equate this ego with a ray from manas, or possibly
the manasic entity itself.

>So, isn't this character somehow a sum-total
>of experiences of previous lives?
	It could be, but it has to be more than that, and doesn't
need to be that at all.  It is not our character or personality that
reincarnates, but the skandhas or propensities.  Tendencies.

Right. But don't these skandhas build our character in current life,
together with environmental factors such as parents, etc.?


>  But since our past
life karma takes the form of genetics in this life, we can simply
look at our genetics and forget past lives to get the same effect.

Yes, we can forget past lives and look at our current physical-psychical-
mental structure. I wouldn't limit this structure to a genetic one, though.


Martin>And doesn't imply this a certain
>pattern for your life and an appropriate environment you're drawn to
>at the time of conception? Please elucidate what your opinion is on that .
	Yes.  I believe that we have a preview of our coming life
 just prior to entering the womb.  This is *not* with certainty, but rather
 a preview of likely possibilities.  Why is one person born to a certain
 family, if not karma?  Our past-life karma takes the form of genetics.

You include psychic structure in genetic structure? I suggest that there
are connections, but that there is something more than genetic structure
alone.


Jerry>We are enabled to do this by selecting our parents.  I am also certain
that we enter the womb at conception.

Yes, I think so too. Did you use clairvoyant observation to come to that
conclusion?

>How does the event of a baby being born from a heroine addicted mother
>fit in in your opinion of karma?

Jerry>	There is no hard and fast rule here.  Perhaps the desire
for physical expression overcomes the desire for quality?  Perhaps
there is a past bond between the incoming child and the mother?

   Yes, I think there is a past bond, otherwise there would not be an
 attraction to the parents to be.

Jerry>Of one thing I am certain: the "innocent victims" in this life
subconsciously accept their position as victims.  Modern psychology also
 agrees with this.

Well, I tend to agree with that point of view. Which subset of psychology
are you referring to? Transpersonal?


Martin>Some people say: 'roll of the dice', but that's a meaningless phrase
to me.
>Who is rolling this dice?
	
Jerry>You are.


Exactly. The reason why I asked is that I want to get to the core
of  people's opinions. It is part of the Socratic method, which I like
(and will practice in my summer-holiday at a school of philosophy ).
I intend to use it more and more on this board and probably at alt.theosophy
too when it gets busier there.

Jerry>  You agreed to the dice roll when you let yourself
be born.  "God's will," "karma," "past lives," "genetics," "luck," and "chaos"
are all attempts to explain the unfairness of life.  As Jimmy Carter once
said, "Nobody ever said that life was fair."

	Well, nobody complains when things go well. But when things turn out
different from expectations, then  the deep ingrained habit
of complaining wakes up and comes into action. Part of the human
psychological make-up.


Martin>IOW, which consciousnesses are at work here? There is much more
behind it, but it has never been thoroughly researched IMO.
And if it has been done
>none has ever been able to explain these processes clearly to me, if to any
>at all.
	

Jerry>The consciousnesses at work are all subsconscious--there
is constant telepathic communiation going on between every monad
in our human lifewave on Globe D.  Not in words, so much as ideas
and images.

Yes, I think so too.

Jerry> Every victim subconsciously agrees to be such.  Every
person on a doomed airplane, for example, subconsciously agrees
to it.

	Well, that's one way to see it. Another perspective may be that
 these persons have not learned to listen to their higher nature
(Guardian Angel) which will probably warn them, and thus cannot escape
from a kind of 'mechanical' type of karma if you understand what I mean.


Jerry>Death is but a part of life, and life is an intricate dance.

	It sure is.



>How or where did you get/find this essay? It looks interesting to me.
	Its in TEXTBOOK OF TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHIATRY
AND PSYCHOLOGY,  B.S. Scotton, A.B. Chinen, & J.R. Battista (eds).
New York: BasicBooks (a div of HarperCollins) 1996.


Thanks for giving me this reference, Jerry.


>> One
>>of the things that transpersonal psychology is doing is
>>helping these people to understand their experiences.
>>Why can't theosophy help?
>	
>Jerry: why don't you give us a start on that?
	I have done so, many times.  But the typical
	Theosophical attitude is to ignore it.  Even Eldon says
	that Kundalini should be left alone.  The problem is,
	a lot of people are having spontaneous Kundalini
	rousings.


Indeed. I've had some rousings myself and it took a while to find my balance
again. This rousings seem related to the transformation of inner structures
in the psyche, at least that's a part that I have observed.
Maybe Eldon means that it is not wise to fool around with Kundalini?
Kundalini is 'occult electricity', a life-force, potentially a very
strong force, I guess. But you know more about it, having practiced
Kundalini Yoga, don't you? What is this yoga all about? How does it work?




 Jerry>  In point of fact, I doubt that any
TS can help these people much anyway.  The danger
of ignoring Kundalini and the like, is that without
knowledge, you can't help others.  Today, transpersonal
psychology is doing more help than the TSs in this
area (i.e., in the new area of spiritual emergency).

Well, transpersonal psychologists probably have had
specific training to deal with 'disorders' like that. I wouldn't send
a person with that kind of problems to TSs anyway, only to a qualified
therapist.


> When I have some spare time for doing some reading on
>transpersonal psychology
>I will certainly do so. Some synthesis with theosophy seems
>appropriate  to me.

Jerry>	Check out some of Ken Wilber's material.  As Chuck says,
he is a bit dry and tedious at times, but the ideas that he presents
are building a bridge between Theosophy and psychology.

Thanks again for a reference. I will certainly check his material.


>Right. The 'signs of the time' tell us that we can't ignore NDE and other
>psychic experiences. Theosophists should do well to think this over and
>consider what theosophy can mean to people with this kind of experiences.

Jerry>	It has helped me, because by studying Theosophy, Magic, and
Occultism, I have built up a worldview that accommodates NDE, Kundalini,
and the like.  But you can't do this by ignoring topics that are relevant
to people nowdays.


Jerry: I agree with that 100%. The times have changed and the only way
theosophists will appeal to and  communicate to larger numbers of people
is to develop a view on these matters. We're slowly getting in the
Aquarius era and people are developing new powers now and have many
new experiences, not common before. In fact, unlike some suggestions
made on this board, I'm not a crystalized core-theosophist at all.
I've been studying and researching other paths as well and am still
doing that as a means to compare ideas, notions, concepts and practices.
I also know that there are organizations that are and have been busy
with the integration of Wisdom-Philosophy/Gnosis, etc. with science
and philosophy (non-Aristotelian semantics for example).
Actually, I expect some efforts of open-minded theosophists to modernize
and update Theosophy to current standards of knowledge.


Martin


	

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 21 15:29:22 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:29:22 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Unveiled Isis
In-Reply-To: <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 writes
>>So Pilate governed Judae during last ten years of emperor
>>Tiberius, that governed during twenty-two years 14-37AD. As
>>gospels says that Jesus was dead under Pilate, so he died before
>>37AD....

One account (may be Tacitus - not sure now) gives the date as the 15th
Year of Tiberius, which would place the crucifixion in 29 c.e.  This
would tie in with the view of many that J was born circa 4 b.c.e.

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 Jun 21 15:33:41 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:33:41 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Unveiled Isis
In-Reply-To: <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 writes
>HPB's .... biblical Jesus is built from
>traditions and revelations of early Christian communities not
>contemporary to Jesus.  In other words, she would say that the
>books "according to" Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not
>written by the above named people, nor are they their real
>testimony.

Many modern scholars share this view, but it is by no means unanimous.
Matthew's gospel is said to have been written first in the Hebrew
(Aramaic) tongue, and for a particular school within the growing
religious movement.  I can go on for hours ... how much considered
opinion would you like?

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 Jun 21 15:37:32 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:37:32 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TSA bad karma
In-Reply-To: <9606210029.AA21872@toto.csustan.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606210029.AA21872@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 writes
>To better make my point concerning this no-so-tenuous-connection;
>did you know that the Co-Masonic Headquarters in Larkspur
>Colorado are currently involved in a legal suit with the TS?  To
>better make my point, I might ask the question:  Do you think it
>a mere coincidence that Joy Mills and Radha Burnier have come to
>the United States just as this legal suit was scheduled to go to
>court?

No!  I heard from another list subscriber that she will be in attendance
during the visit of the Great Ones, and will offer her thoughts in due
course .... don't tell me - it's about property and/or assets?

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 Jun 22 00:43:14 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 01:43:14 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: QABBALAH AND KABALA
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960621224941.006ba6ec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960621224941.006ba6ec@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>No Alan: I am NOT kidding! But let me jog your memory a bit.
>
>Sometime past, Dr. Bain and Dr. Jerry Schueler had a discussion regarding
>the proper spelling of the word Qabbalah-Kabala and they arrived at a
>tentative agreement that Kabala meant tihe serious intellectual study of
>Kabala as philosophy-religion,

Yes, but not just intellectual - it has its methods, but not those you
mention below ...

> while Qabbalah or Qabala represented the
>Ceremonial Magical aspect of the subject.

This is now a common convention.
>
>Now it is patently clear that when we are talking about KABALA, then Rabbi
>Akiba, Scholem, and Kaplan are the paramount experts.

Not the only ones, but yes.

> But when were are
>talking about the ceremonial magic aspects of QABBALAH, it is Eliphas Levi
>who is the paramount authority to the "magical community". Israel Regardie
>and the other "Masters" of Occult Magic, Aleister Crowley included, would be
>much less without Levi's influence.  I consider eliphas Levi to be a far
>more important figure in the Ceremonial Magic Community that Aleister
>Crowley. Unfortunately Levi is tainted by his connections with Joseph Maria
>Hoene-Wronski and Theodore Reuss.

Agreed. To each his or her own.  Thanks for bringing out this
distinction clearly again.  It *does* need restating from time to time.
:-)
>
Alan.
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 06:54:19 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 23:54:19 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622065419.006cb8d0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: To Paul K. Johnson - reading and posting to alt.theosophy

At 08:24 PM 6/21/96 -0400, you wrote:
>This is a re-post at the request of PKJ:
>
>At last I found out how people whose service provider doesn't carry
>the alt.theosophy newsgroup can *post* to this newsgroup:
>
> E-mail to alt.theosophy@news.demon.co.uk


 Paul: I followed Martin's suggestion and this works for me. I can READ
alt.theosophy by way of Netscape
gold 2.1 but I cannot post via that vehicle except  as a private response to
an individual poster. I just read and then switch to my service provider and
send an E-Mail via England...Isn't technology wonderful????

alexis
>
>(besides that you just fill in the subject line and the actual message)
>
>Demon internet has a so-called E-mail to Usenet gateway, that's why
>it works. Plus it carries the alt.theosophy newsgroup on its newsserver.
>
>Typically your message is added to the list of articles in the alt.theosophy
>newsgroup on demon internet and then
>distributed along with  other new postings to news-servers around the world
>that carry this newsgroup. This means that ALL people with E-mail facilities
>should normally speaking be able to post to alt.theosophy.
>
>
>Reading messages can be done by way of Rene's newsgateway
>
> http://www.spiritweb.org/cgi/newsgateway.cgi?alt.theosophy
>
>Note that the question mark after cgi is obligatory, it's not a typo.
>
>Reading postings should be possible by this method, replying or posting a
>new message may not work. But you can use the above mentioned E-mail method.
>
>Martin
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 07:05:20 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 00:05:20 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622070520.006dba78@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: QABBALAH AND KABALA

At 11:23 PM 6/21/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Agreed. To each his or her own.  Thanks for bringing out this
>distinction clearly again.  It *does* need restating from time to time.
>:-)
>>
>Alan.
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>I think so too. people, for the most part, tend to ignore the different
spellings AND their different interpretations and just lump it all together
without any distinctions at all. Serious scholars like you tend to get
lumped with people playing some kind of "dungeons and Dragons".
The trouble with Theodore Reuss is not only is he connected with Eliphas
Levi, Franz Hartman and James Wedgewood, but also with Dietrich Eckart and
Franz Haushofer and the Thule Gesellshaft, and far worse than that with the
Saturnine Order.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 17:57:28 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:57:28 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622175728.006b98fc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 01:46 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>That's a very interesting point.  By this definition one could call Physics
>a religion, and to many, it is just that.  I view Theosophy as more than
>just a set of core doctrines.  It is a process, but that doesn't invalidate
>the core, underlying truths that the founders Unveiled.

You know I know many Quantum theorists and Particle physicists and not one
of them has an attitude towards their admittedly speculative science which
is based upon such observation as is available to them, that fits any
definition of "religion". Now, I do find statements like \: "truths which
the founders unveiled" to be of a distinctly religious flavor because of the
unavoidable air of reverence about them.

>My own personal definition of religion involves some deep, reverant
>adoration of a supreme deity(ies).  Anything other than that is a science.

I think Chris, that you have a much looser definition of "science" than I do.

>I think we may have a problem the day Theosophists start worshiping the
>Solar Logos- but I see no problem with the acknowledgement of such entities.

But Chris, many of them do, in particular people who follow in the footsteps
of CWL who very clearly worshipped the "Masters" it's apparent in every word
that he wrote. How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.
>

>
>Actually I was upset by the fact that I couldn't locate a group that
>discussed the writings of Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Beseant, etc.  I wanted to
>understand more of what these writers had to say.  Personally, I found the
>Secret Doctrine rather complicated and confusing the first several times of
>reading it.  Come to think of it, I still find it rather confusing at
times. :-)

I'd be astonished if you didn't find it confusing, even some people i've met
who practically know it by heart find it confusing at times. But, I think it
was meant to be confusing, I think it can be described as a very elaborate
Zen Koan. A thing designed to get a person so confused that they break
through the walls of their conditioning and education and begin to think for
themselves. I've been studying this material for almost thirty years now and
have a good library of Theosophical Written Works. What I've boiled it down
to is this: "Core Theosophy" is about 94.5% CWL, .5% Annie Besant
(comparative exegesis indicates pretty clearly that Mrs. Besant simply
"signed on to things CWL wrote for her) and only 5% H.P.B. It is my belief
that if one wishes to really study "Core Theosophy" one should concentrate
not simply on Blavatsky herself, but upon such of her work that could not
have been subject to severe revisionism in the years after Besant and
Leadbeater assumed absolute control over the Society after Olcott's passing.
>
>>What was it that made those of us who view theosophy as a process
>>theosophists? It was four things. The motto of the society: "There is no
>>Religion Higher than Truth" (SATYAT-NASTI-PARO-DHARMA) and The Three
>
>Another important aspect resides in the underlying truth common between all
>major world religions.  This underlying truth being examined in many of the
>"core doctrines" (maybe writings would be a better word).

I really do think it would. "Basic theories", or "basic writings" do not
carry the philological and semantic freight that the word "Doctrines" does.
"Doctrines" is nearly synonymous with "Dogma" and they both have overtones
of infallibility about them. There are distinctly commonalities between the
World's major religions, of that there is no question. BUT, whether or not
those commonalities have any thing to do with intrinsic "truth" remains to
be seen. I, by the way prefer the word "reality" to the word "truth" as the
latter word also bears too much semantic freight. There is a better than
equal chance that a strenuous comparative study of all religions, and
especially of their commonality, may be more likely to produce an
understanding that none of them are of any value. At least that's what it
did for me.
>
>>Theosophy, therefore is a process of self-transformation, through personal
>>action. Now as the three objects are what they are, and as the first of the
>
>Personally I view Theosophy as a way of looking at life, not necessarily the
>process through which one lives it.  I think that the religion one may or
>may not hold dictates how one lives their life.

It seems to me that "the way one looks at life" IS the process through which
one lives it. If in fact "Religion" dictates how one lives one life...what
then of those of us who are Agnostic (as I am) or Atheist?


I view it this way because>theosophy is *not* a religion, but rather, a set
of underlying truths
>(explained in the core writings) that tie various religions together.  Hence
>the reason that any creed could join- because it held none of it's own.

I think that the "core writings" are speculative philosophy and nothing
more, as nothing more is possible.
>
>>objects essentially entails helping to bring about a condition of planetary
>>amity and planetary equality and those conditions require absolute liberty,
>>it means and requires far more than sitting around and meditating or reading
>>theosophical books. It absolutely requires action out in the world to bring
>>about the desired conditions. the thing I call "theosophy as process"
>>creates a thing I call "theosophists as transactional activists". Yelena
>
>I see it a little differently.  I view the internal, self-transformation,
>one goes through as the cause of the outward effect of world-wide harmony
>and peace.  Of course this requires everyone to participate ;-)

If the entire Human Race sat around on their bottoms 24 hours a day and
"meditated" the world would be an island of quiet and passivity, simply
because no one was doing anything at all, but there would be no real harmony
or peace. Real harmony an peace require active and intelligent participation
and dedication and personal sacrifice. I adamantly believe that "good works"
are infinitely more valuable than
"Good Thoughts".
>
>>One might interpret the second object as an injunction to "ivory tower
>>intellectuality". But that's not how I see it,  the process is comparative
>>and synthesizing. It's an activist approach to the study and comparisons of
>>religions, philosophies, and all the sciences in an inter and intra
>>disciplinary manner. Each discipline compared with others like it and then
>>cross-disciplinary comparison.
>
>My thoughts exactly.  And what I term the Core Doctrines are the thoughts,
>opinions, and findings of those Theosophists who came before us.  It was how
>they perceived life, outwardly and inwardly.

Chris: I am a theosophical historian and if you've been reading some of my
other messages, and tuning into the thread on theos-list regarding CWL
you'll find that some of the "theosophists who came before us" were insane,
and some of them were terribly bad people.
>
>>And lastly, and most important of all if the others are to be realized: an
>>attempt to become aware of the greater reality outside of physical reality
>>by way of a personal quest of paranormality.
>
>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
>I may say so :-)

It's clearly your absolute right to say so, it is also my absolute right to
say that, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense.
>
>>All of this is active, all of this is radical, all of this is revolutionary.
>>I view myself as a philosophical and theological anarchist, I view Yelena
>>Blavatskaya as a philosophical and theological anarchist too.
>
>How is this viewpoint revolutionary with respect to the Theosophist?  Not a
>flame, just curious.

Chris, it is "revolutionary" to the Big "T" Theosophist because it is
entirely catalytic, and if followed to it's logical end, it will completely
overturn (that after all is the goal of revolution) their entire view of
theosophy and themselves. That I think qualifies as "revolutionary". Don't you?
>
>>If Theosophy (note the big "T") devolves into a study group devoted entirely
>>to the reading and re-reading of a few old books, which may or may not be in
>>any way valid in our temporal context, and devotes itself to the religious
>>view of those books and the iconization of their authors, then as HPB
>>predicted, her movement is dead.
>
>A good process to work on is to understand the underlying truth given out in
>these doctrines and writings as they relate to current society.  They're as
>equally valid now as they were then, and in my opinion, will be valid
>through the next age.  If you read Blavatsky's Cosmogenesis, it spans
>Aeons...if one happens to follow that particular writing of hers, the whole
>belief system has been around for quite some time ;-)

Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative
metaphysics, that's all. When we start talking about "truths given out" were
really talking about "revealed truth" and that, my friend, is the religious
approach not the intellectual approach. Metaphysics is not so much a "belief
system" as a systematic methodology for the attempt to comprehend abstract
realities. It postulates the existence of a greater reality outside of, and
beyond, physical realities. This is a greater reality that must be
experienced not "learned about". Other peoples "travelogues' are of value
only to themselves.
>
>Sincerely,
>Christopher Allen
>
In Friendly disagreement

alexis dolgorukii>
>

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 17:57:34 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:57:34 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622175734.006bdaa8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 01:45 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>The problem is that you would be too classy at doing it.  Now I would make
>sure that they were all properly implanted with a little microchip and had
>three sixes tatooed on their foreheads so that they would be unable to be
>unhappy.  That way the peasants would not revolt, no matter how revolting
>they may actually be.
>After all, when people vote, they might vote for the wrong person, so the
>idea is to make sure that they don't have the opportunity to make that
>mistake.
>
>Chuck the Heretic  MTI, FTSA
>
>Chuck:

People voted under my ancestors? I din't know that. Of course the Holy Roman
Emperor was an elected office but only "The Prince and Bishop Electors
voted. and they were hereditary. (The Bishops too). I think giving people
the illusion of power they don't have is unkind. but Napoleon was right:
"Men are ruled by Baubles", and the Romans were right too: "Bread and
Circuses", even the sultan of Brunei is right, he pays his people to be
passive and fat and comfortable. The problem with people having micro chips
implanted is that it denies the ruler the use of their creativity and
initiative. Now, you must remember that there's another motivator too, and
that's the one Tamurlane and Genghis Khan used...terror! Revolutions have
never toppled either a strong ruler or a ruthless one. Only the weak get
overthrown. One could always do worse than take Machiavelli to heart, its a
shame Ceasare Borgia didn't. He was certainly ruthless, but he wasn't really
strong, for his entire power base was his Father's position, and when his
Father died, it dissolved, and he was far too self-indulgent.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 17:57:36 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:57:36 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622175736.006bf698@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AND THE NAZIS

At 01:45 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Looks like fun.  Did you see my posting to alt.theosophy about the Nazi
>question.  It pretty much echoes you.
>
>Chuck the Heretic MTI, FTSA
>
>I saw! I am awaiting the results.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 17:57:38 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:57:38 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622175738.006b1568@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 01:45 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Fortunately there are enough of us theosophists out here who know that cores
>are strictly for apples.  The older writings contain interesting and often
>useful ideas, but other than that have no authority.
>
>Chuck the Heretic MTI, FTSA
>
>And many cores, not only those in apples, are rotten!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 17:57:39 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:57:39 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622175739.006b3adc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry

At 01:47 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Comments on today's digest and recent posts:
>
>Re: subscribing to alt.theosophy.  Someone, maybe Martin,
>posted a website address through which one could get to the
>newsgroup even if one's server didn't carry it.  I feel
>unwilling to request anything of the State Library in this
>regard, since time on the newsgroup could be considered goofing
>off.

Paul: Welcome back,I hope you had a good vacation. This is the way I get to
post messages on alt.theosophy, I use by "web cruiser" Netscape to read the
news group but I cannot post from it as yet.
>
>Re: Krishnamurti's fame.  I checked WorldCat, the biggest
>bibliographic database (OCLC) in catalog format, and found 297
>books under the subject J. Krishnamurti.  This includes
>multiple editions or translations of the same title.  PB had
>341, Edgar Cayce 724, Jesus Christ more than 77,000.  Cayce is
>well ahead of major founders of American religious groups like
>Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen G. White, but behind Joseph Smith.
>In India, I saw K.'s books in every bookstore, and everyone
>seemed to know who he was, more so by far than in the West.  So
>he did have a big impact, but whether or not it is a lasting
>one remains to be seen.

It may last longer in India because there's an immense element of National
Pride involved.
>
>Re: Theosophy as process.  HPB put it this way (pardon my
>paraphrase); "Theosophy is the philosophy of rational
>explanation of things, not the specific tenets."  And
>"Theosophist is as Theosophy does" NOT "Theosophist is as
>Theosophy *believes*"-- which I take to mean both attaining
>some level of gnosis and transforming your life accordingly.

Thanks for the agreement.
>
>Re: the individuals being better than the organization.  Isn't
>this true everywhere?  In the TSA, it seems particularly so,
>but what does this mean?  My guess is that for every step up
>the ladder toward becoming an "important Theosophist" one has
>to jettison certain values.  Like openness and honesty and
>responsiveness to perceived needs.  Those values get supplanted
>by values like solidarity with the in-group, secrecy,
>manipulativeness, ambition.  It is the way organized Theosophy
>has been permeated by secret societies which has brought this
>about.  Perhaps one could go so far as to say that the very
>qualities of which the movement is most in need are the
>qualities most likely to cause a person to be ostracized or at
>least marginalized.
>
TRUE....TRUE....TRUE...TRUE!


ALEXIS DOLGORUKII

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sat Jun 22 16:36:25 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:36:25 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606221838.AA18490@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 08:48 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960620064721.006cb35c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>>Perhpas he was one of the "wolves" eh Bjorn? But in any case, as you know,
>>I don't believe that the Jesus you talk about was a real person, or even a
>>real egregore, so your response is irrelevant as usual.
>>alexis
>>
>And Alan playfully butts in:
>
>Sometimes, Alexis, I suspect that the many things you don't believe in
>make up a whole new religion all of their own!

Seriously, Alexis is a true "believer", too, only that he likes to be
contrarian in his beliefs. This seems to make him fell better about himself.

Bjorn




From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 18:47:41 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:47:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622184741.006c7cf4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 08:48 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960620064721.006cb35c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>>Perhpas he was one of the "wolves" eh Bjorn? But in any case, as you know,
>>I don't believe that the Jesus you talk about was a real person, or even a
>>real egregore, so your response is irrelevant as usual.
>>alexis
>>
>And Alan playfully butts in:
>
>Sometimes, Alexis, I suspect that the many things you don't believe in
>make up a whole new religion all of their own!
>
>Alan:-}
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>To which Alexis (even more playfully), responds: Oh alan, you're so clever,
how did you ever guess? But on a serious note: How about a non-oppressive,
non-judgemental, non-authoritarian, "interim replacement" while folks get
ready to stand on their own two feet?

Alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 18:51:44 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:51:44 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622185144.006ddb58@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 08:48 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>True, there is no substitute for sitting down to dinner with friends.  But
>consider this.  People who meet on the net very often meet in real life as
>well.  I just spent an entire weekend with people who started that way.
>My point is that the large organizational structures are pretty irrelevant in
>such a world.  People no longer need them.
>
>Chuck
>
>Oh as regards "large organizational structures" and even "Governmental
Structures" people need them not. But they do need human contact! That's the
only worry I have regarding the internet, I fear that people will lose the
ability to relate to one another as people. Television has been bad enough
for the human race.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 18:52:42 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:52:42 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622185242.006d272c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 08:48 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <9606200338.AA17535@alpinet.net>, Bjorn Roxendal
> writes
>>Jesus said "My sheep know my voice". But, that may not help you, since he
>>didn't say "My volwes know my voice".
>>
>>Bjorn
>
>Cheeky! You may get your wrist slapped :-)
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>What's a "volwe"?

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 18:57:04 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:57:04 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622185704.006bb834@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet

At 08:49 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Also, if there is a Society with such a motto, THE WORLD AT LARGE WILL
>JUDGE IT BY ITS ADHERENCE TO ITS MOTTO.
>
>Sorry to shout, but sometimes my placid Taurean nature gets fed up with
>observing that people simply do not see what is right under their noses.
>(Nothing personal).
>
>Alan :-(
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan:

Perhaps the world has already judged it by it's adherence to it's motto, and
the result was "MENE-MENE-TEKEL-UPHARSHIN"! There are 5 billion some odd
people on this planet and about 40 thousand theosophists. That's a judgement
of a kind.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 22 19:30:11 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:30:11 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960622193011.006e6f3c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 08:49 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>A> I can see how a 24 hour delay can complicate things if one isn't
>prepared for it. But, "fore warned is fore armed", and knowing of that delay
>will clearly prevent either of us from making false assumptions.
>
>yes.
>
>A> What I'd like to do from now on, is when I
>question your use of a word, I will create a paragraph to be headed:
>                                        TIME OUT.....LINGUISTIC QUESTION!!!!!!
>And then I'll put that question to you, so that you can respond separately
>from the rest of the question. How about that?
>
>
>Excellent idea, Alexis!
>
>
>A>Now as to your suggestion that I present viable alternatives
>etc. I have done so, and when the book comes out you can get a copy and see
>the complete presentation of my ideas and perceptions.
>
>
>Ok, I'll give you my snail-mail address by then.
>
>
>
>A> In the interim I will
>try to make my responses more technical, probably not as technical as the
>Blavatsky Foundation would like, but more technical. The biggest hurdle is
>that it is my perception that "Core Theosophy" as presently taught, is 95%
>CWL/AB....5% HPB....and 0% The Mahatmas.
>
>
>In TSA but not in other TS's. CWL/AB do not count there.

Oh absolutely not, but they each of them have their own versions. Pasadena
has Katherine Tingley and G do P, and the ULT has an entirely devotional
approach to HPB and WQJ. I think in all cases HPB has been "sidelined".


>
>A> This perception of mine is based on
>almost thirty years of vast reading of Theosophical Documents and other
>documents about Theosophy. It is also based on intuition, and upon my
>experiences of the greater reality (which is after all what theosophy deals
>with) as both a very successful Ceremonial Magician and an extremely Senior
>Shaman.
>
>
>What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.

And a serious question deserves a serious answer: A Ceremonial Magician
utilizes ritual, which is a complicated construct of sensory input, to focus
his/her will and the acquiescent wills of those who may be present, in an
attempt to change reality in conformity with that will. To be a "successful
Ceremonial Magician" means that when one does so, it works! The Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox High Masses are acts of ceremonial magic, and
with the right officiant it sometimes works.
>
>
>
>A> Now I don't "back up" those claims with "Fairy Tales" or "Sunday
>School Homilies" as CWL did. I back them up by absolutely curing very sick
>people of very physical diseases by non-physical means. Martin whether you
>wish to accept this as factual or not, I know I can make people with AIDS
>(not simply HIV + but active AIDS) better, and I have made three such people
>completely well. That proves it sufficiently for my own needs.
>
>
>Well, I think that  a really good healer should be able to heal people
>with AIDS, so that's not a problem with me. If the word is spread your
>house may be flooded with AIDS-patients (then you will be faced with
>problems of how to deal with too many patients).

I wouldn't find it a problem, I can train others to do what I do very
quickly, and I think there's be no better healer than one who was healed.
The only thing that "bothers" me at all, is that in two of the cases,
they're back at their old haunts doing just what they did to get sick in the
first place.

>But being a good healer does not give you any 'authority', I think, other
>than you having confidence in your own experiences. I don't recognize
>any authority at all in spiritual affairs, save my own Higher Self.
>Of course , sometimes things that others say may resonate and make sense
>to me, because I recognize what they're saying.
>
>>>>Alexis: I would not exactly count myself as an orthodox literalist,
>>that is too easy a label to put on somebody. I'm searching for truth,
>>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.

Oh that's quite true, I just would be very careful as to what "frame of
reference" I used.
>
>A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
>"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
>fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
>today's young people.
>
>Never had one complaint about that. I wonder whether others have some
>experience with that. The necessity of presenting a framework doesn't
>disappear with that, however.

I have a feeling that perhaps your speech in your own language is not as
'flowery" as it is in a language that isn't your first one. And yes a
framework is important but it had best be a valid one, and there's
altogether too much about "Core Theosophy" that is anything BUT valid.
That's my opinion of course.
>
>A> Now, in addition, you say you're "searching for truth"
>and I believe you are sincere in that statement. But, you also give the
>impression that you've found it. And that what you have found is 19th
>Century Post Blavatskian  "Core Theosophy". In your statement on alt.
>theosophy you appear to be not so much a "seeker" as a "finder".
>
>Hm, that's probably my surface appearance. But that can be deceptive.
>To give one example: I don't believe in a 'law of karma' in a literal way.
>I rather see this 'law' as the interactions of the multitudes of beings.
>'Chaos' would be the conflict of wills, leading to a breaking of order
>(gradual transformations of structures or, sometimes, revolutions)
> and 'order' a symphony of wills, leading to stability (but if continued
>too long: leading to crystallization, stasis).

Well Martin, that's a statement with which I have absolutely no trouble at
all, in fact I agree completely.

>I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.

Oh please do! If you'd put it that way in the first place we'd have a
broader basis to stand on.

>Alexis, sometimes I get the impression that you seem to have found
>*your truth* despite the fact that you call yourself 'agnostic'
>and I'm not ironic in any way by saying this.

Well< I suppose one could say that an "agnostic" has found a KIND  of
"truth" and that is that "there is not, thus far, any kind of provable
truth". But that is not my own view. My view is that there is no such thing
as "divinely ordered truth" and that what I am seeking is not so much
"truth" as an understanding of abstract realities. For that is what "truth"
means to me......."abstract realities".

>>Alexis: I objected to your 'roll-of-the-dice' view of things. I asked
>>you where the idea of justice fits in to which you responded that you
>>don't believe in (universal) justice. It's still not clear to me, however,
>>what you *do* believe in regarding justice. But this has nothing to do
>>with amicable discussions. I always presume that people want amicable
>>discussions. I was and still am asking, however, for supportive
>>arguments from your side regarding your views on theosophy.
>
>A>My friend Dr. Einstein also disliked the "roll-of-the-dice" which is
>implicit in Quantum Mechanics, which is one of my own personal bases of
>opinion. BUT, at the very end of his life, he said: "I was wrong...God does
>play dice".
>
>
>Well, Alexis, I have a degree in physics and have studied QM and
>the recent findings in that field a bit and things are not precisely
>like you and many other lay-people in physics presume. Quantum mechanics
>gives a description of the *measurement process* and nothing more.
>Moreover, physicists find themselves flabbergasted with the discovery of
>'non-locality' in the quantum realm. This discovery will lead eventually
>to a new kind of QM.
>It's too technical to describe, but this discovery has also implications
>for relativity-theory. It is evident that some basic assumptions in RT
>are wrong. Only which one(s)? Nobody knows yet.

What sort of degree? don't make assumptions of what others do or don't know.
I am not a physicist, nor a quantum Theorist myself, but  I have friends who
are and whom I use for reference. Most of my quantum theorist friends have
low opinions of physicists (which I don't share because I know academics all
too well). I know too may people who would not accept your presentation of
quantum Theory as a "measurement process" and nothing more. Second I am told
that you should have said that "some Physicists are flabbergasted" and not
implied that they all are. Lastly everyone knows (I assume that if I do,
everyone does) that there are basic assumptions in Relativity Theory that
are wrong, Einstein himself acknowledged that. But no matter what, I think
our modern sciences at this point in time are far more in resonance with a
"roll of the dice" theory than they are with "divine ordinance".
>
>A> I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
>effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
>a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
>beings. Now as to Justice on a Human Scale, you will find no one more
>ferocious in their defense of justice and fairness than I. But, I do not
>make the mistake of thinking that Justice/fairness the human conception,
>needs to have a cosmic counterpart.
>
>
>Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize this conception too, but I am
>convinced that there is Order in this universe, however it may be
>working. What is your view on order and structure in this universe?
>And how is it related to the equilibrium you're talking about in the
>previous paragraph?
>
>A>People need to be just, people need to
>be fair, people need to be kind....to make the world a better place for us
>all to live in....but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the
>greater reality.
>
>
>But it has everything to do with the thoughtpatterns (egregores) people
>are feeding. And these patterns have consequences for the whole world.
>Voila, that's an example of karma as I apply or maybe better: translate
>into psychological terms.

Thought patterns (egregores) are entirely speculative and hypothetical, I
should hate to base our world society on hypothesis.
>
>A>I was born rich, intelligent, talented, very good looking
>(I was once the highest paid fashion model in Paris) and titled. By
>Theosophical "Core Doctrine" I must have deserved it! But I didn't. I was
>just lucky! On the other hand, in 1919 the Communists murdered 3200 members
>of my family, that wasn't Karma, it was just bad luck.
>
>
>Or a disastrous outcome of egregore energies (created and sustained by
>people, not an abstract entity).

It's just as likely to be the disastrous outcome of social manipulation by
ruthlessly ambitious men.
>
>
>A>Little Czarewitch
>Alexei, was a 14 year old hemophiliac when he was shot to death. If that was
>the result of "Karma" then Karma is about as unjust as Adolf Hitler.
>
>
>Like I said, I don't believe in that kind of karma. It is *people* that
>act and *people* that suffer. Nothing mysterious about that.

>You acknowledge the existence of egregores; an understanding of these
>things is an understanding of events, I think.
>
>Once again I acknolwedge the POSSIBILITY of the existance of egregores and
speculative objects, to do more than that, would I submit, be mistaken.
>Martin
>
>
alex>
>
>
>

From RIhle@aol.com Sat Jun 22 20:07:46 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:07:46 -0400
From: RIhle@aol.com
Message-Id: <960622160746_561839383@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry

Paul Johnson writes>

>Re: Theosophy as process.  HPB put it this way (pardon my
>paraphrase); "Theosophy is the philosophy of rational
>explanation of things, not the specific tenets."  And
>"Theosophist is as Theosophy does" NOT "Theosophist is as
>Theosophy *believes*"-- which I take to mean both attaining
>some level of gnosis and transforming your life accordingly.
>
>

Richard Ihle writes>

Welcome back, Paul!  Did anyone mistake you for a local inhabitant?

While you were gone, things on theos-l got better, then got worse, then got
much worse, then got great for a second, then got far worse than they have
ever been, then there was a group orgasm, then we realized everyone was
faking it, then things got worse again. . . .

I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."  More simply,
however, I am convinced that we have to hold fast to the idea that the
Society includes both "dictionary definitions" (both small and capital T).
 Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
Truth seekers out of the Society completely.

By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me that
the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in mind for
the general membership.  (~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
perception.")  By "weeding" the Society of members who do not necessarily
believe all the "core doctrines" but who are nonetheless willing to consider
knowledge which comes via theosophical epistemology, John and others (if this
is indeed their purpose) may be pulling up much of HPB's most worthwhile
future crop.

Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
may be a harbinger in this regard.  John's answer probably did not give him
much satisfaction; it certainly did not beg him to stay or anything.  Bill
Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
to teach and promote those ideas?"

Did you catch the subtle machination in the second part of the sentence?
 While we are undoubtedly all open to study etc., where in THE THREE OBJECTS
does it say anything about a "official mission" to teach and promote HPB's
ideas?  I can perhaps live with this as the sort of  "quiet understanding" it
has been for over a hundred years; however, the new fatuous and/or mendacious
overtness regarding this subject is pretty amazing and depressing.

Anyway, glad you are back.

Godspeed,


Richard Ihle



From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 22 20:46:47 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:46:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry
In-Reply-To: <960622160746_561839383@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote:

> Paul Johnson writes>
>
> >Re: Theosophy as process.  HPB put it this way (pardon my
> >paraphrase); "Theosophy is the philosophy of rational
> >explanation of things, not the specific tenets."  And
> >"Theosophist is as Theosophy does" NOT "Theosophist is as
> >Theosophy *believes*"-- which I take to mean both attaining
> >some level of gnosis and transforming your life accordingly.
> >
> >
>
> Richard Ihle writes>
>
> Welcome back, Paul!  Did anyone mistake you for a local inhabitant?
>
> While you were gone, things on theos-l got better, then got worse, then got
> much worse, then got great for a second, then got far worse than they have
> ever been, then there was a group orgasm, then we realized everyone was
> faking it, then things got worse again. . . .
>
> I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."  More simply,
> however, I am convinced that we have to hold fast to the idea that the
> Society includes both "dictionary definitions" (both small and capital T).
>  Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
> pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
> stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
> Truth seekers out of the Society completely.
>
> By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me that
> the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in mind for
> the general membership.  (~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
> originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
> perception.")  By "weeding" the Society of members who do not necessarily
> believe all the "core doctrines" but who are nonetheless willing to consider
> knowledge which comes via theosophical epistemology, John and others (if this
> is indeed their purpose) may be pulling up much of HPB's most worthwhile
> future crop.
>
> Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
> may be a harbinger in this regard.  John's answer probably did not give him
> much satisfaction; it certainly did not beg him to stay or anything.  Bill
> Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
> John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
> teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to teach and promote those ideas?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are finding new inventions and discoveries. First we had the three
hidden objects and now the teaching aspect.

I always thought that the mission of TS is to pursue any and all
activities focusing on the three objects. If HPB and others felt that
TS's mission were to teach, then TS would have been nameds as
Theosophical School with various levels of certificates, awards and other
artifices to pat the ego of the students. Even the annual six month
intensive study program at Adyar is call School of Wisdom not School of
Theosophy.

Soon you and I may be asked to go through an examination to recertify
that we have *learnt* Theosophy and many of us may flunk it because we
have not understood the official version of Theosophy.

This reminds me of an interesting incident. In one of the east coast 4
year college there was a 3 hour course on Krishnamurti philosophy.
Someone got hold of a copy of the finals paper and showed it to JK. He
looked at it and commented he may flunk it.

Had someone told me that I am going to be *taught* Theosophy, I would not
have become a formal member at all.

We are in very interesting times. Whether all this teaching etc is going
to revive interest or not is yet to be seen.

>
> Did you catch the subtle machination in the second part of the sentence?
>  While we are undoubtedly all open to study etc., where in THE THREE OBJECTS
> does it say anything about a "official mission" to teach and promote HPB's
> ideas?  I can perhaps live with this as the sort of  "quiet understanding" it
> has been for over a hundred years; however, the new fatuous and/or mendacious
> overtness regarding this subject is pretty amazing and depressing.
>
> Anyway, glad you are back.
>
> Godspeed,
>
>
> Richard Ihle
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From coallen@cris.com Sat Jun 22 20:53:44 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:53:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606222053.QAA12761@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>definition of "religion". Now, I do find statements like \: "truths which
>the founders unveiled" to be of a distinctly religious flavor because of the
>unavoidable air of reverence about them.

I didn't mean to imply any religious connotations to that statement.  I was
just stating that the founders laid various pieces of information out in
front of the viewer that weren't clearly seen before.  My personal opinion
is that most people look at absolute truth through a religious (or agnostic,
or scientific, etc) eyepiece.  Theosophy is a way of stepping back and
seeing both the eyepiece of religion and the abosolute truth together and
seperate.

>
>>I think we may have a problem the day Theosophists start worshiping the
>>Solar Logos- but I see no problem with the acknowledgement of such entities.
>
>But Chris, many of them do, in particular people who follow in the footsteps
>of CWL who very clearly worshipped the "Masters" it's apparent in every word
>that he wrote. How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
>supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
>Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.
>>

I never got the impression from any of Leadbeaters books that he worshipped
the masters.  As far as the prostration of people before Annie Besant, I
explain it with one word- craziness :-)  That is sad, I hope Theosophists
have evolved since then and don't do that anymore ;-)

>"signed on to things CWL wrote for her) and only 5% H.P.B. It is my belief
>that if one wishes to really study "Core Theosophy" one should concentrate
>not simply on Blavatsky herself, but upon such of her work that could not
>have been subject to severe revisionism in the years after Besant and
>Leadbeater assumed absolute control over the Society after Olcott's passing.
>>

That's all I was trying to get across in my original message- that there is
a set of writings that could be considered to be "Core Theosophy".

>I really do think it would. "Basic theories", or "basic writings" do not
>carry the philological and semantic freight that the word "Doctrines" does.
>"Doctrines" is nearly synonymous with "Dogma" and they both have overtones

I've noticed that semantics are looked at very carefully on this thread.
They almost tend to overshadow the writer's original meaning at times.  I'll
try to be more selective with my words.  :-)

>It seems to me that "the way one looks at life" IS the process through which
>one lives it. If in fact "Religion" dictates how one lives one life...what
>then of those of us who are Agnostic (as I am) or Atheist?
>

Some form of the scientific process I would assume...or at least objectively
and openly (well, maybe not the atheist).

>
>If the entire Human Race sat around on their bottoms 24 hours a day and
>"meditated" the world would be an island of quiet and passivity, simply
>because no one was doing anything at all, but there would be no real harmony
>or peace. Real harmony an peace require active and intelligent participation
>and dedication and personal sacrifice. I adamantly believe that "good works"
>are infinitely more valuable than
>"Good Thoughts".
>>

I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
has to be that "good thought."

>Chris: I am a theosophical historian and if you've been reading some of my
>other messages, and tuning into the thread on theos-list regarding CWL
>you'll find that some of the "theosophists who came before us" were insane,
>and some of them were terribly bad people.
>>

I've been following the thread.  I've seen some of the key Theosophists
linked to various people who could be considered  bad.  But I haven't seen
any examples of any of these people doing anything "bad" other than being
associated with "bad" people.  Even if one considers them to be bad, that
still doesn't negate the importance of their work.

>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
>>I may say so :-)
>
>It's clearly your absolute right to say so, it is also my absolute right to
>say that, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense.

Yes, I thought you might think as much.  It helps me to understand where
you're coming from.

>Chris, it is "revolutionary" to the Big "T" Theosophist because it is
>entirely catalytic, and if followed to it's logical end, it will completely
>overturn (that after all is the goal of revolution) their entire view of
>theosophy and themselves. That I think qualifies as "revolutionary". Don't you?
>>

I don't equate the process of self-transformation with revolution.  I think
that as a Theosophist starts to transform themself into something new, that
their viewpoint of Theosophy will change, but I wouldn't call it
revolutionary.  I am curious though, since you don't seem to place great
value on meditation, what tool would one use to help with this
"self-transformation"?

>Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
>as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
>it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative

Again, a semantics issue.

I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
message, how is Theosophy a process?

Chris
/*********************************************************
*                    Christopher Allen                   *
*              Systems Integration Specialist            *
* 2448 East 81st Street              coallen@tandata.com *
* Suite 3600                      http://www.tandata.com *
* Tulsa, OK  74137-4632             918.499.2801 Support *
*                                                        *
* Intelligent Logistics Solutions in OS/2 and Windows NT *
*********************************************************/

From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sat Jun 22 21:13:46 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:13:46 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606222113.AA02496@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Re: Blavatsky's prophecy and Krishnamurti


>If HPB was right in her statement, I am yet to find another
>person who fits the description that she gave in the Key to
>Theosophy. If someone knows of another person who fits HPB's
>prediction, then we should look into it. There is yet another
>possibility. May be the timing of the coming of the Messenger
>may still take place before the end of this century.
>
>So in these matters no one can be 100% certain. Only we can
>speculate.
>________________________________________________________________
>______
>******** Peace to all living beings*****************
>
>         M K Ramadoss


HPB made several statements concerning "a messenger" in the last
quarter of the century.  In comparing them, I personally have
found no reason to assume that she meant a world teacher of the
type Krishnamurti was promoted to be, or even a specific
individual who would gain world recognition as such.  The
"messenger" could have been completely anonymous, and there is
certainly no indication that this "messenger" would be connected
with the TS.   Rather, she may not have meant an individual at
all.   It all depends upon the weight you want to give to the
different statements.  The "last quarter of the century" seems to
be the one consistent phrase in her various statements.  But if
you want to discount that in order to make Krishnamurti a
candidate, then you have opened the door to every so-called
spiritual teacher that has appeared this century both in and out
of the TS.

According to HPB's predictions, this "messenger" should have
appeared around 1975 and somehow have a Tibetan connection, since
the edict was supposed to have been made by Tsong Ka Pa.  Off the
top of my head, I would say that the present Dali Lama is the
best fit.  He fits the right time line, and his Tibetan
connection is obvious.  Since around 1975 he has been travelling
the world giving a spiritual message to the "white barbarians"
(as Tsong Ka Pa was supposed to have called us).

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 Sat Jun 22 21:14:48 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:14:48 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606222114.AA03608@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Unveiled Isis


JHE
>>Since HPB doesn't back up her statement with examples,
>>I suspect that it was a common and accepted notion among higher
>>criticism biblical scholars in her day.

A
>It`s clear that sinoptics and John`gospel aren`t in
>contradiction about one or three years of duration of Jesus
>ministry,  as HPB suggests.
>
>I reproduce a catholic text, that you can find at Internet

JHE
The probable reason why HPB does not support her statement that
the synoptics differed from John is because she was only
uncritically restating a common perception of the time, and its
actual truth or falsity did not concern her point one way or the
other.  Her point is that Irenaeus followed neither the one year
nor the three year ministry as suggested in the Gospels, but
ignored both and argued for a ten, fifteen or twenty year
ministry.  Therefore, I don't think it fair to fault HPB for
merely repeating a common perception that she neither endorses
nor argues against.  A more legitimate question concerning HPB's
statement is whether there was a perceived conflict concerning
the agreement between the synoptics and the gospel of John on the
length of Jesus' ministry.  The Catholic text that you quoted
seems to confirm that there indeed was such a perceived conflict
since the last section you quoted engages in an argument
attempting to harmonize the synoptics with the Gospel of John on
this point.

JHE

------------------------------------------
   |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 Sat Jun 22 23:50:07 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:50:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS
In-Reply-To: <199606222053.QAA12761@darius.cris.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Christopher Allen wrote:

> At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
> >definition of "religion". Now, I do find statements like \: "truths which
> >the founders unveiled" to be of a distinctly religious flavor because of the
> >unavoidable air of reverence about them.
>
> I didn't mean to imply any religious connotations to that statement.  I was
> just stating that the founders laid various pieces of information out in
> front of the viewer that weren't clearly seen before.  My personal opinion
> is that most people look at absolute truth through a religious (or agnostic,
> or scientific, etc) eyepiece.  Theosophy is a way of stepping back and
> seeing both the eyepiece of religion and the abosolute truth together and
> seperate.
>
> >
> >>I think we may have a problem the day Theosophists start worshiping the
> >>Solar Logos- but I see no problem with the acknowledgement of such entities.
> >
> >But Chris, many of them do, in particular people who follow in the footsteps
> >of CWL who very clearly worshipped the "Masters" it's apparent in every word
> >that he wrote. How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
> >supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
> >Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.
> >>
>
> I never got the impression from any of Leadbeaters books that he worshipped
> the masters.  As far as the prostration of people before Annie Besant, I
> explain it with one word- craziness :-)  That is sad, I hope Theosophists
> have evolved since then and don't do that anymore ;-)

	In India, prostration or touching the feet of anyone older than
oneself or anyone  considered spiritually evolved is routine show of
respect does not mean  worshipping. This is so even today. If any
westerner followed the custom and did so in the spirit of worshipping
then they are mistaken.

	J Krishnamurti put an end to this practice completely. If anyone
accidentally even touched his feet, he in turn touched the feet of the
person who touched his.

...MK Ramadoss


 >
> >"signed on to things CWL wrote for her) and only 5% H.P.B. It is my belief
> >that if one wishes to really study "Core Theosophy" one should concentrate
> >not simply on Blavatsky herself, but upon such of her work that could not
> >have been subject to severe revisionism in the years after Besant and
> >Leadbeater assumed absolute control over the Society after Olcott's passing.
> >>
>
> That's all I was trying to get across in my original message- that there is
> a set of writings that could be considered to be "Core Theosophy".
>
> >I really do think it would. "Basic theories", or "basic writings" do not
> >carry the philological and semantic freight that the word "Doctrines" does.
> >"Doctrines" is nearly synonymous with "Dogma" and they both have overtones
>
> I've noticed that semantics are looked at very carefully on this thread.
> They almost tend to overshadow the writer's original meaning at times.  I'll
> try to be more selective with my words.  :-)
>
> >It seems to me that "the way one looks at life" IS the process through which
> >one lives it. If in fact "Religion" dictates how one lives one life...what
> >then of those of us who are Agnostic (as I am) or Atheist?
> >
>
> Some form of the scientific process I would assume...or at least objectively
> and openly (well, maybe not the atheist).
>
> >
> >If the entire Human Race sat around on their bottoms 24 hours a day and
> >"meditated" the world would be an island of quiet and passivity, simply
> >because no one was doing anything at all, but there would be no real harmony
> >or peace. Real harmony an peace require active and intelligent participation
> >and dedication and personal sacrifice. I adamantly believe that "good works"
> >are infinitely more valuable than
> >"Good Thoughts".
> >>
>
> I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
> hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
> has to be that "good thought."
>
> >Chris: I am a theosophical historian and if you've been reading some of my
> >other messages, and tuning into the thread on theos-list regarding CWL
> >you'll find that some of the "theosophists who came before us" were insane,
> >and some of them were terribly bad people.
> >>
>
> I've been following the thread.  I've seen some of the key Theosophists
> linked to various people who could be considered  bad.  But I haven't seen
> any examples of any of these people doing anything "bad" other than being
> associated with "bad" people.  Even if one considers them to be bad, that
> still doesn't negate the importance of their work.
>
> >>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
> >>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
> >>I may say so :-)
> >
> >It's clearly your absolute right to say so, it is also my absolute right to
> >say that, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense.
>
> Yes, I thought you might think as much.  It helps me to understand where
> you're coming from.
>
> >Chris, it is "revolutionary" to the Big "T" Theosophist because it is
> >entirely catalytic, and if followed to it's logical end, it will completely
> >overturn (that after all is the goal of revolution) their entire view of
> >theosophy and themselves. That I think qualifies as "revolutionary". Don't you?
> >>
>
> I don't equate the process of self-transformation with revolution.  I think
> that as a Theosophist starts to transform themself into something new, that
> their viewpoint of Theosophy will change, but I wouldn't call it
> revolutionary.  I am curious though, since you don't seem to place great
> value on meditation, what tool would one use to help with this
> "self-transformation"?
>
> >Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
> >as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
> >it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative
>
> Again, a semantics issue.
>
> I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
> message, how is Theosophy a process?
>
> Chris
> /*********************************************************
> *                    Christopher Allen                   *
> *              Systems Integration Specialist            *
> * 2448 East 81st Street              coallen@tandata.com *
> * Suite 3600                      http://www.tandata.com *
> * Tulsa, OK  74137-4632             918.499.2801 Support *
> *                                                        *
> * Intelligent Logistics Solutions in OS/2 and Windows NT *
> *********************************************************/
>
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 22 23:53:33 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 18:53:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Blavatsky's prophecy and Krishnamurti
In-Reply-To: <9606222113.AA02496@toto.csustan.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:

>
> >If HPB was right in her statement, I am yet to find another
> >person who fits the description that she gave in the Key to
> >Theosophy. If someone knows of another person who fits HPB's
> >prediction, then we should look into it. There is yet another
> >possibility. May be the timing of the coming of the Messenger
> >may still take place before the end of this century.
> >
> >So in these matters no one can be 100% certain. Only we can
> >speculate.
> >________________________________________________________________
> >______
> >******** Peace to all living beings*****************
> >
> >         M K Ramadoss
>
>
> HPB made several statements concerning "a messenger" in the last
> quarter of the century.  In comparing them, I personally have
> found no reason to assume that she meant a world teacher of the
> type Krishnamurti was promoted to be, or even a specific
> individual who would gain world recognition as such.  The
> "messenger" could have been completely anonymous, and there is
> certainly no indication that this "messenger" would be connected
> with the TS.   Rather, she may not have meant an individual at
> all.   It all depends upon the weight you want to give to the
> different statements.  The "last quarter of the century" seems to
> be the one consistent phrase in her various statements.  But if
> you want to discount that in order to make Krishnamurti a
> candidate, then you have opened the door to every so-called
> spiritual teacher that has appeared this century both in and out
> of the TS.
>
> According to HPB's predictions, this "messenger" should have
> appeared around 1975 and somehow have a Tibetan connection, since
> the edict was supposed to have been made by Tsong Ka Pa.  Off the
> top of my head, I would say that the present Dali Lama is the
> best fit.  He fits the right time line, and his Tibetan
> connection is obvious.  Since around 1975 he has been travelling
> the world giving a spiritual message to the "white barbarians"
> (as Tsong Ka Pa was supposed to have called us).
>
> JHE
>
> ------------------------------------------
>    |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
>       |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
>          |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
>             |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
>                ------------------------------------------
>
>
Thanks for you comments. As I indicated in an earlier message, we cannot
be 100% sure and let us add Dalai Lama to the list.

Crowley
Krishnamurti
Dalai Lama

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 23 00:02:17 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:02:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960622175739.006b3adc@pop.slip.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, alexis dolgorukii wrote:

> At 01:47 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >Comments on today's digest and recent posts:
> >
> >Re: subscribing to alt.theosophy.  Someone, maybe Martin,
> >posted a website address through which one could get to the
> >newsgroup even if one's server didn't carry it.  I feel
> >unwilling to request anything of the State Library in this
> >regard, since time on the newsgroup could be considered goofing
> >off.
>
> Paul: Welcome back,I hope you had a good vacation. This is the way I get to
> post messages on alt.theosophy, I use by "web cruiser" Netscape to read the
> news group but I cannot post from it as yet.
> >
> >Re: Krishnamurti's fame.  I checked WorldCat, the biggest
> >bibliographic database (OCLC) in catalog format, and found 297
> >books under the subject J. Krishnamurti.  This includes
> >multiple editions or translations of the same title.  PB had
> >341, Edgar Cayce 724, Jesus Christ more than 77,000.  Cayce is
> >well ahead of major founders of American religious groups like
> >Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen G. White, but behind Joseph Smith.
> >In India, I saw K.'s books in every bookstore, and everyone
> >seemed to know who he was, more so by far than in the West.  So
> >he did have a big impact, but whether or not it is a lasting
> >one remains to be seen.
>
> It may last longer in India because there's an immense element of National
> Pride involved.

	J Krishnamurti's has played a very important role in advising
Nehru over the years as the latter sought his feedback when many
difficult situations arose in India. When Indira Gandhi took over as
Prime Minister, she also sought his counsel when there were difficult
situations arose. Moreover, JK single handedly was responsible for Indira
Gandhi's lifting of the emergency rule she has imposed. Some of these are
the reason why he is still remembered in India.

	...MK Ramadoss


> >
> >Re: Theosophy as process.  HPB put it this way (pardon my
> >paraphrase); "Theosophy is the philosophy of rational
> >explanation of things, not the specific tenets."  And
> >"Theosophist is as Theosophy does" NOT "Theosophist is as
> >Theosophy *believes*"-- which I take to mean both attaining
> >some level of gnosis and transforming your life accordingly.
>
> Thanks for the agreement.
> >
> >Re: the individuals being better than the organization.  Isn't
> >this true everywhere?  In the TSA, it seems particularly so,
> >but what does this mean?  My guess is that for every step up
> >the ladder toward becoming an "important Theosophist" one has
> >to jettison certain values.  Like openness and honesty and
> >responsiveness to perceived needs.  Those values get supplanted
> >by values like solidarity with the in-group, secrecy,
> >manipulativeness, ambition.  It is the way organized Theosophy
> >has been permeated by secret societies which has brought this
> >about.  Perhaps one could go so far as to say that the very
> >qualities of which the movement is most in need are the
> >qualities most likely to cause a person to be ostracized or at
> >least marginalized.
> >
> TRUE....TRUE....TRUE...TRUE!
>
>
> ALEXIS DOLGORUKII
>

    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 23 03:56:47 1996
Date: 22 Jun 96 23:56:47 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)
Message-Id: <960623035646_76400.1474_HHL64-2@CompuServe.COM>

Martin to Alexis:
> Quantum mechanics
>gives a description of the *measurement process* and nothing more.
>Moreover, physicists find themselves flabbergasted with the discovery of
>'non-locality' in the quantum realm. This discovery will lead eventually
>to a new kind of QM.
	The "nothing more" is a personal view.  It is the view taken
by the late Richard Feynman, whose little book QED is probably one
of the best written on quantum mechanics, without getting theoretical.
However, we have to get theoretical if we want to know how the
quantum measurement process works.  What happens when the
wave function collapses?  There are a lot of theories currently
being studied, but so far, no one knows what is really going on at
the quantum level, nor what goes on during the translation to our
own everyday scale.  All we really know for sure, is that quantum
measurement works, and that God does play dice.
	The reason why physicists don't understand non-locality
is because they acknowledge only one small physical world. There
is more to life than the four-dimensions of spacetime.
	I agree that a new kind of QM is necessary in order
to explain the facts in a manner that makes sense.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 23 03:56:43 1996
Date: 22 Jun 96 23:56:43 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: core teachings & ruminations
Message-Id: <960623035643_76400.1474_HHL64-1@CompuServe.COM>

Martin:
>Yes, I'd agree on that. Leaves still the question:
>what forces/consciousnesses/substances are involved in this causation?
	The forces are those of order and chaos.  In Hindu terms,
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are alive and well.  Individual karma, on
the astral-mental level is largely the effect of guilt and remorse.  We
often suffer today for what we *think* we did in the past.  For people
with a lot of guilt, purification processes, prayers, and so on work well.

>agreed, if you equate this ego with a ray from manas, or possibly
>the manasic entity itself.
	Manas is a principle.  I assume you mean here the human
monad (?).  G de P calls manas the "higher ego" which equates to
HPB's Ego (cap E) or reincarnating ego.  He distinquishes it from
the "Lower Manas" which is closer to the human ego or personality.
(see table on page 439 of Fountain-Source of Occultism).  You
can think of the lower manas as a ray of the higher, but "ray" gives
a false impression, at least to me.  I prefer manifestation or
expression on a lower plane--the Ego (individuality) is on the causal
plane while the ego (personality) is on the mental plane.

> But don't these skandhas build our character in current life,
>together with environmental factors such as parents, etc.?
	Yes.  We are affected by more than  just skandhas.  We
are also affected by our environment (which a purist would say
is also karmic).  The skandhas are tendencies, which will only
build our character if we sit back and let them.  We do not have
to be subject to our skandhas, anymore than we need be
subjected or controlled by the planets.  We have free will, and
can (and should) start making some new, and better, skandhas.
In fact, skandhas can be eliminated in what is called the
jivamukti.

>You include psychic structure in genetic structure? I suggest that there
>are connections, but that there is something more than genetic structure
>alone.
	I was, yes, but you don't have to.  For example, intelligence
can be said to be genetic, and also part of the skandhas.  I often
refer to the whole business as our karmic burden, as sort of a
catch-all.  Its simply more convenient for me to think of past karma
in terms of genetic (what we bring with us at birth) and environmental
(what we have made during this life).  But, as I have said many times,
nothing is a simple as it seems on the surface.

>Yes, I think so too. Did you use clairvoyant observation to come to that
>conclusion?
	Memory.  Also, I like Tibetan Buddhism, and they teach
entrance at conception.

>> Every person on a doomed airplane, for example, subconsciously
>>agrees to it.
>Well, that's one way to see it. Another perspective may be that
 >these persons have not learned to listen to their higher nature
>(Guardian Angel) which will probably warn them, and thus cannot escape
>from a kind of 'mechanical' type of karma if you understand what I mean.
	The "agreement" is often a loose one.  Acceptance of
our mortality puts us all in the position of possible victim to something
sooner or later.  I have known people who had a bad feeling, and
left an airplane to catch a later one, and then the plane went down.  They
did not want to play that particular game.  If we listen to our inner voice
or intuition, is it usually a good guide to a longer life.

> This rousings seem related to the transformation of inner structures
>in the psyche, at least that's a part that I have observed.
>Maybe Eldon means that it is not wise to fool around with Kundalini?
>Kundalini is 'occult electricity', a life-force, potentially a very
>strong force, I guess. But you know more about it, having practiced
>Kundalini Yoga, don't you? What is this yoga all about? How does it work?
	There are two basic kinds of yoga.  In one, we raise
consciousness to a higher level leaving the physical behind.  In
the other, we bring down spiritual energy into our body.  The latter
is what Kundalini Yoga does, and yes it is dangerous.  The energy
enters the body via the chakras.  Two prominent physical symptoms
are involuntary muscular twitching and a higher body temperature.
If done too fast or too hard, you get a headache.  AB warns about
headaches obtained this way.  Although somewhat dangerous,
all you really have to do is to ease up, and go slower.  One of
the goals is to spiritualize the physical body.  Sri Aurobindu tried
this for years and finally announced that because we were so far
into the Kali Yuga, it could no longer be done.  He may be right.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI


From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 23 04:13:20 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:13:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Teaching Theosophy in Lodges/Branches/Study Centers
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


We have seen the CWLodgebuilder/BillDelahunt's ideas on teaching
Theosophy in Lodges/Branches/Study Centers.

With the increasing trend in unattached members, how do you make them
learn Theosophy and then test their progress. Of course there are study
courses. Would it work.

With the present procedure of putting new lodges on a
provisional/probational mode until their activities are "evaluated" by
the powers be to see if they are satisfied, what would happen if a group
of members, all of them members at large, but meet regularly and carryon
any kind of activity they want?

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:28:37 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:28:37 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623002836_336660460@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
By the time people are ready to stand on their own two feet, you will be
reincarnated and I will be an old man of hoary hairs.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:28:20 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:28:20 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623002820_336660427@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

Alex,
I was going to say that, but I figured I'd let you have the fun.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:27:36 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:27:36 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623002735_336660386@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

Alex,
Terror is great fun and there is nothing like a good execution card to keep
the great unwashed happy, but it is a lot of work and the only reason our
industrious and enlightened forebears used it was because simpler methods
were not available.  Now implanting everyone with a microchip is relatively
cheap, totally effective and you can, on days when things get boring, cause
people to do the most amazing things.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:27:36 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:27:36 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623002734_336660486@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
People are basically social animals, due to our simian heritage.  The contact
will continue with or without any organizational basis.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:28:42 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:28:42 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623002841_336660540@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet

Will you damned angels stop writing on my wall?!?!?

Nebuchadnezzar
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:28:28 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:28:28 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623002827_336660519@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
I think "volwe" is the official Darjeeling Council spelling of wolf.
 Apparently the Master Jesus is still illiterate, either that or the sacred
ash fell out of his sleeve and an embarrassing moment again.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 23 04:34:17 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:34:17 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960623003417_336664060@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Teaching Theosophy in Lodges/Branches/Study Centers

Doss,
If individual theosophist start meeting on their own and studying whatever
they want to, the powers that be will jump up and down, throw vegetables,
scream barbarous words of pseudo-masonic invocation, hold their breath until
they change skin color and try to decide which national section to expel.

Chuck the Heretic
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 22 19:48:44 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:48:44 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960622185242.006d272c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960622185242.006d272c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>>What's a "volwe"?
>
>alexis

This mystery is revealed only to the highest intitiates in the service
of the Mistresses (and their sisters and their cousins and their aunts).

Send $500 for further details.

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 Jun 22 19:45:59 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:45:59 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: <9gE7aFA31EzxEwBd@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960622184741.006c7cf4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960622184741.006c7cf4@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>Alan playfully butts in:
>>
>>Sometimes, Alexis, I suspect that the many things you don't believe in
>>make up a whole new religion all of their own!
>>
>>To which Alexis (even more playfully), responds: Oh alan, you're so clever,
>how did you ever guess? But on a serious note: How about a non-oppressive,
>non-judgemental, non-authoritarian, "interim replacement" while folks get
>ready to stand on their own two feet?
>
>Alexis
>
On another serious note: how the h... do you set the thing up?

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 Jun 22 19:51:58 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:51:58 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: How many Theosophists?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960622185704.006bb834@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960622185704.006bb834@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>There are 5 billion some odd
>people on this planet and about 40 thousand theosophists.

Do we have an accurate head count as of a given (recent) date, by any
chance?
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 05:36:15 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 22:36:15 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623053615.006d17bc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 02:35 PM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:48 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>In message <2.2.32.19960620064721.006cb35c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>>dolgorukii  writes
>>>>Perhpas he was one of the "wolves" eh Bjorn? But in any case, as you know,
>>>I don't believe that the Jesus you talk about was a real person, or even a
>>>real egregore, so your response is irrelevant as usual.
>>>alexis
>>>
>>And Alan playfully butts in:
>>
>>Sometimes, Alexis, I suspect that the many things you don't believe in
>>make up a whole new religion all of their own!
>
>Seriously, Alexis is a true "believer", too, only that he likes to be
>contrarian in his beliefs. This seems to make him fell better about himself.
>
>Bjorn

Slowly and reluctantly I am being forced to agree with Chuck. This man IS an
idiot. Bjorn, in a recent posting, said that he and I live in different
universes. For this I am grateful. I would really dislike living in HIS
universe.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 05:51:06 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 22:51:06 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623055106.006bfcec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry

At 04:13 PM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:

>

>
>While you were gone, things on theos-l got better, then got worse, then got
>much worse, then got great for a second, then got far worse than they have
>ever been, then there was a group orgasm, then we realized everyone was
>faking it, then things got worse again. . . .

Richard: Would you please "flesh out that scenario for me? I must have
missed something, to me it seemed that everything was going along fairly
smoothly and people were having reasonable discussions even when they disagreed.
>
>I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."  More simply,
>however, I am convinced that we have to hold fast to the idea that the
>Society includes both "dictionary definitions" (both small and capital T).
> Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
>pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
>stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
>Truth seekers out of the Society completely.

Richard: That is, in my view, the only rational explanation of their
actions. I do think you have to include Radha Burnier in the equation too. I
don't find it too difficult to hypothesize WHAT they're dong it's WHY they
are doing it that I have trouble with.
>
>By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me that
>the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in mind for
>the general membership.  (~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
>originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
>perception.")  By "weeding" the Society of members who do not necessarily
>believe all the "core doctrines" but who are nonetheless willing to consider
>knowledge which comes via theosophical epistemology, John and others (if this
>is indeed their purpose) may be pulling up much of HPB's most worthwhile
>future crop.
>
>Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
>may be a harbinger in this regard.  John's answer probably did not give him
>much satisfaction; it certainly did not beg him to stay or anything.  Bill
>Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
>John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
>teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
>to teach and promote those ideas?"

Well, I am glad to see I wasn't the only person disturbed by John Algeo's
response to Jack Hatfield's letter. I think John's letter was disingenuous,
dissembling, saccharine, and terribly hypocritical. With every issue of The
Messenger and with every public "official" act and publication, they are
making it more and more clear that if a person doesn't accept their "Core
Doctrine" as "Dogma" them that person had best find somewhere else to work
at their trans formative quest. It is my considered opinion that what is now
passed off as "Theosophical Teachings" is 94.5% CWL, .5% A.B. and
unfortunately, merely 5% H.P.B. I don't know if that proportion is what the
original founders had in mind, in fact I doubt very strongly that they'd
approve of it at all.
>
>Did you catch the subtle machination in the second part of the sentence?
> While we are undoubtedly all open to study etc., where in THE THREE OBJECTS
>does it say anything about a "official mission" to teach and promote HPB's
>ideas?  I can perhaps live with this as the sort of  "quiet understanding" it
>has been for over a hundred years; however, the new fatuous and/or mendacious
>overtness regarding this subject is pretty amazing and depressing.

Indeed it is! I don't know about you but it makes me angry! Of course with
my present reputation, "everything"makes me angry, but to those who really
know me, that is anything but true.
>
>Anyway, glad you are back.
>
>Godspeed,
>
>
>Richard Ihle
>
>
I'm glad he's back too!

alexis dolgorukii
>
>

From cdgert@rci.ripco.com Sun Jun 23 06:18:51 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 01:18:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude)
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <960623002836_336660460@emout16.mail.aol.com> from "Drpsionic@aol.com" at Jun 23, 96 00:31:52 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 236

>
> Alex,
> By the time people are ready to stand on their own two feet, you will be
> reincarnated and I will be an old man of hoary hairs.
>
> Chuck the Heretic
>
I thought you were already Chuck
(ducking)
Gertrude the Churchmouse
From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 06:33:42 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:33:42 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623063342.006e65c4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 05:04 PM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>clip<<<<<<
>
>I didn't mean to imply any religious connotations to that statement.  I was
>just stating that the founders laid various pieces of information out in
>front of the viewer that weren't clearly seen before.  My personal opinion
>is that most people look at absolute truth through a religious (or agnostic,
>or scientific, etc) eyepiece.  Theosophy is a way of stepping back and
>seeing both the eyepiece of religion and the abosolute truth together and
>seperate.

I am afraid I must agree with the Vedas and also with the early words of
Gautama. Absolute Truth is absolutely unknowable. Even that which is much
less sententiously called "abstract truth" is not easy to know, and, IMO
religion is the worst of all ways to approach it.
>
>>

>I never got the impression from any of Leadbeaters books that he worshipped
>the masters.  As far as the prostration of people before Annie Besant, I
>explain it with one word- craziness :-)  That is sad, I hope Theosophists
>have evolved since then and don't do that anymore ;-)

He (CWL) didn't? His language throughout his writings is redolent of
worship. It's not just Edwardian hyperbole. In "The Masters and The Path" he
speaks of "prostrating" himself at the feet of the Master "M". Now when an
Englishman(even a lower middle class one such as CWL) prostrates  himself
before some Human Being (and the English don't even prostrate themselves in
front of their Monarch) then that Englishman is clearly "worshipping" the
person. All of his (CWL's) terminology is evocative of worship. Oh yes I
agree with you that the only explanation of Europeans prostrating themselves
before Annie Besant is "craziness" but it was CWL who created that state.
>
>>"signed on to things CWL wrote for her) and only 5% H.P.B. It is my belief
>>that if one wishes to really study "Core Theosophy" one should concentrate
>>not simply on Blavatsky herself, but upon such of her work that could not
>>have been subject to severe revisionism in the years after Besant and
>>Leadbeater assumed absolute control over the Society after Olcott's passing.
>>>
>
>That's all I was trying to get across in my original message- that there is
>a set of writings that could be considered to be "Core Theosophy".

But which set?
>
>>I really do think it would. "Basic theories", or "basic writings" do not
>>carry the philological and semantic freight that the word "Doctrines" does.
>>"Doctrines" is nearly synonymous with "Dogma" and they both have overtones
>
>I've noticed that semantics are looked at very carefully on this thread.
>They almost tend to overshadow the writer's original meaning at times.  I'll
>try to be more selective with my words.  :-)

I am a long time student of both semantics and philology and I have a really
heartfelt devotion to the importance of precision in language. The problem
with language usage is that careless usage can totally confuse the meaning
of what the writer (or speaker) intended.
>
>>It seems to me that "the way one looks at life" IS the process through which
>>one lives it. If in fact "Religion" dictates how one lives one life...what
>>then of those of us who are Agnostic (as I am) or Atheist?
>>
>
>Some form of the scientific process I would assume...or at least objectively
>and openly (well, maybe not the atheist).
>
>>
>>If the entire Human Race sat around on their bottoms 24 hours a day and
>>"meditated" the world would be an island of quiet and passivity, simply
>>because no one was doing anything at all, but there would be no real harmony
>>or peace. Real harmony an peace require active and intelligent participation
>>and dedication and personal sacrifice. I adamantly believe that "good works"
>>are infinitely more valuable than
>>"Good Thoughts".
>>>
>
>I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
>hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
>has to be that "good thought."

Ah, but what is meant by the term "good thought"? How many definitions of
that term are there?
>
>>Chris: I am a theosophical historian and if you've been reading some of my
>>other messages, and tuning into the thread on theos-list regarding CWL
>>you'll find that some of the "theosophists who came before us" were insane,
>>and some of them were terribly bad people.
>>>
>
>I've been following the thread.  I've seen some of the key Theosophists
>linked to various people who could be considered  bad.  But I haven't seen
>any examples of any of these people doing anything "bad" other than being
>associated with "bad" people.  Even if one considers them to be bad, that
>still doesn't negate the importance of their work.

Chris: It not only "negates the importance of their work" it negates
everything about their work. Do you know anyone who considers the sexual
molestation of pre-pubertal boys anything other than an extremely "bad
thing"? If a person can't be trusted in one thing, is it wise to trust them
in any thing? Is a man who abuses children a man who can be trusted as a
spiritual guide? Is a woman who is (as you put it) "crazy" enough to
encourage people to prostrate themselves to her, to be considered a reliable
guide. Is a person whose sense of values is so skewed as to allow them to
closely associate themselves with people like the Nazis, to be trusted as a
teacher or guide? What all this does is throw into question not only the
validity of their work but the veracity of their work. I am somewhat
flabbergasted at your comment "linked to various people who could be
considered bad". Is that all you have to say about Adolf Hitler and company?
That they "could be considered bad"? These people, and all their allies and
associates are guilty of some of the most heinous acts of all times. They
are a quantum or exponential "jump" on just "bad". There isn't really a word
to describe how terrible these people were. And it "rubs off", indeed it does.
>
>>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
>>>I may say so :-)
>>
>>It's clearly your absolute right to say so, it is also my absolute right to
>>say that, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense.
>
>Yes, I thought you might think as much.  It helps me to understand where
>you're coming from.

I think you will find that most people with legitimate scientific
credentials consider it nonsense too. I am not a scientist in any way, but
the scientists whom I do know, all agree with me.
>
>>Chris, it is "revolutionary" to the Big "T" Theosophist because it is
>>entirely catalytic, and if followed to it's logical end, it will completely
>>overturn (that after all is the goal of revolution) their entire view of
>>theosophy and themselves. That I think qualifies as "revolutionary". Don't
you?
>>>
>
>I don't equate the process of self-transformation with revolution.  I think
>that as a Theosophist starts to transform themself into something new, that
>their viewpoint of Theosophy will change, but I wouldn't call it
>revolutionary.  I am curious though, since you don't seem to place great
>value on meditation, what tool would one use to help with this
>"self-transformation"?

Each person must find his own "tool" to use in the process of
transformation. I don't place any real value on "formal meditation" as too
much of it, in my 30 years experience, is simply rote-ritual. For some
people "drumming" takes it's place, for others some other thing they find
personally useful, too many people by far are into "militant meditation".
>
>>Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
>>as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
>>it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative
>
>Again, a semantics issue.

May I have your help in comprehending what you just said? Are you saying
that because it is a "semantics issue" it's irrelevant?
>
>I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
>message, how is Theosophy a process?
>
>Chris

I'll insert my response before the commercial. < big grin>

Let me put this as simply and clearly as I can. Theosophy is a process
because it is an intellectual catalyst which motivates a person to seek an
understanding of abstractions concerning reality (truth), through study and
experimentation by way of the "Three Objects". It is a process because it is
an activity which a person must perform by and for themselves. It is a
process because another person's understanding is not your own. It is a
process because it's something which a person must DO, not learn about. Core
Theosophy  is, as I see it, a total avoidance of the process. As I see it,
"Core Theosophy" is a way people who don't want to go through the process
themselves, try to get someone else to do it for them. But, unfortunately
for them, that's not at all possible. It's a thing one must do totally on
one's own.

alexis dolgorukii
>/*********************************************************
>*                    Christopher Allen                   *
>*              Systems Integration Specialist            *
>* 2448 East 81st Street              coallen@tandata.com *
>* Suite 3600                      http://www.tandata.com *
>* Tulsa, OK  74137-4632             918.499.2801 Support *
>*                                                        *
>* Intelligent Logistics Solutions in OS/2 and Windows NT *
>*********************************************************/
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 06:51:54 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:51:54 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623065154.006de6fc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 12:34 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I was going to say that, but I figured I'd let you have the fun.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Ah so deska! In a way, I am "having fun" as a "catalytic Converter". I
really do enjoy making people think about things from a different
point-of-view for a change. In the Roman Church they call this playing
"Avocatus Diavolus", only I am NOT "acting" I am simply saying what I think.
In the several months since  I have been re associated with Theosophy
(primarily by way of this list) I am flabbergasted to learn how many people
not only refuse to think for themselves, but how many people are afraid to
accept responsibility for themselves. The seem to be drawn to "Core
Doctrines" as a way to let someone else do their growing for them. Their
little conceptual package is all gift wrapped and tied up in a big bow!

I must be getting somewhere, for Bjorn is literally foaming at the mouth! If
he's not careful one of these days he'll get so angry with me he'll have a
CVA. For my part I am awed by Bjorn, never in my life did I ever imagine
anyone could be so smug, self-righteous, and utterly self-satisfied. He's
almost as bad as Pat Robertson.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 06:51:56 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:51:56 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623065156.006d7d80@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Theosophy

At 12:37 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Terror is great fun and there is nothing like a good execution card to keep
>the great unwashed happy, but it is a lot of work and the only reason our
>industrious and enlightened forebears used it was because simpler methods
>were not available.  Now implanting everyone with a microchip is relatively
>cheap, totally effective and you can, on days when things get boring, cause
>people to do the most amazing things.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>no comment.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 06:53:16 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:53:16 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623065316.006da048@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet

At 12:41 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Will you damned angels stop writing on my wall?!?!?
>
>Nebuchadnezzar
>
>But we were the first graffiti artists!

Azrael

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 06:55:54 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:55:54 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623065554.006d4ec8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 12:43 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I think "volwe" is the official Darjeeling Council spelling of wolf.
> Apparently the Master Jesus is still illiterate, either that or the sacred
>ash fell out of his sleeve and an embarrassing moment again.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Oh Uncle Chuckie: Thank you so much for explaining that to me! Do you
suppose an "Volwe" is a "wolfish volvo"? I mean he is Swedish!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 06:59:10 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:59:10 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623065910.006e40bc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 12:53 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960622185242.006d272c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>>What's a "volwe"?
>>
>>alexis
>
>This mystery is revealed only to the highest intitiates in the service
>of the Mistresses (and their sisters and their cousins and their aunts).
>
>Send $500 for further details.
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>
"A fine mess you'd get me into...Ollie". I figured it out. A "volwe" is a
supercharged Volvo!

alexei

From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Jun 23 06:54:55 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:54:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: The Messenger
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi Y`all,
	Actually, *I'm* the Messenger predicted by HPB. But its not yet
time to reveal my True Mission. And lemme tell ya, I'm not at *all* happy
with the organization that's been prepared for me.
	Just thought you'd like to know.

***********************************************************************
	Seriously tho, could it perhaps be that it is actually the
*Internet* that is the predicted "Messenger" - it carries not one
message, but *all* messages, contains ... as the crystallization of the
collective mind of humanity .... every science, every art, every
religion, every philosophy -
	What is a "messenger" but one who *carries a message* - why then,
in these times, would a single *person* - with all the potential
distortians and flaws - be needed? A hundred initiates, a thousand
chelas, even the Adepts themselves now have this global tool into which
they can introduce multiple ideas in virtually every realm of human
thought ... without ever needing to reveal their *personalities* (and
hence greatly confuse the issue).
	And yes, while begun somewhat earlier ... it was not until almost
the precise beginning of the last quarter of the century that the
Internet suddenly seemed to take off.
	Myself, I care little for Krishnamurti's re-heated Vedantic
Monism (even cosmic tupperware couldn't have kept it fresh for *that*
long), nor any other *individual* - perhaps its time to finally
understand that the *world itself* is the ultimate messenger ... that
*no* individual, even up to the Adepts themselves, can ever do anything
but "reveal" the smallest fraction of what reality itself pours into our
beings every moment of the day. It is not lack of knowledge that plagues
us today, but its surplus; not a dearth of "wisdom", but the abusiveness
of those who claim to possess it; not a lack of messengers or messages,
but the belief that another "messenger" will somehow accomplish what
thousands before didn't; "truth" is not a "pathless land", but indeed has
infinite paths both to it and within it - and every single damn cell of
every body of every single one of the "masses" is one of its statements
.. has embedded in it the sum total of 3 1/2 billion years of
development through every conceivable environment that has every existed
on this planet, and may well have been generated initially by an impulse
originating from some other realm.
	Consider, for a moment, the Internet as a *being*, as the
equivilent of the *personality* construct to be the "messenger" - such a
thing would mean that ultimately it is not the *messenger* but the *ears
of those listening* that determines what wisdom is imparted. The Net
becomes anything one wishes ... whatever one's intent is, there will one
find themself ... and if one wishes to *serve*, the Net reaches its
highest manifestation ... the wisdom and specialized knowledge of
*thousands* lies at one's fingertips. This is an age in which the
*preparation to recieve* must be focussed upon.
	Truth is what one finds when one stops avoiding oneself.
	The "messenger" is already here, but as few understand its
langauage as have understood that of the messengers of the past.
	And now, as it has always been, Service is the coin of the realm:
The price of wisdom is its use.
							Toodles, -JRC
From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 07:18:14 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:18:14 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623071814.006b9ac8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: How many Theosophists?

At 12:57 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960622185704.006bb834@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>There are 5 billion some odd
>>people on this planet and about 40 thousand theosophists.
>
>Do we have an accurate head count as of a given (recent) date, by any
>chance?
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>alan:

I am going to assume you mean "accurate count of Theosophists". The 5 to 5
1/2 Billion head count of world population is the latest U.N. figure and Im
told by friends in the World Health Organization that it's probably a vast
under estimation.

As to Theosophists; that's a tall order. I am told by Chuck Cosimano that
there are 30,000 members in India (and believe it or not they are not ALL
related to Radha Burnier) The TSA has, I am told some 5,000 members, the UTA
is a problem because they have no members (they say) and no dues, and no
organization. But Jerry E-H says they probably have about 1,000. The
Pasadena group has even fewer (there are only 3 members in the entire San
Francisco Bay area which contains over 5 million people), and most of the
other national sections are under a thousand members each, so I think a
rough estimate of 50,000 members is pretty fair. And so if we just "even it
out": fifty thousand out of 5.5 billion is so tremendously insignificant
it's amazing.

alexei

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 06:23:24 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 02:23:24 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606230825.AA01600@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 12:53 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960622185242.006d272c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>>What's a "volwe"?
>>
>>alexis

Although I disagree with 90% of what Alexis writes, I have thought, up till
now, that he was a fairly intelligent person. Alexis, it is not "a volwe",
but a Volvo.

Bjorn

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 06:23:26 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 02:23:26 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606230825.AB01600@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 01:36 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:

>>Seriously, Alexis is a true "believer", too, only that he likes to be
>>contrarian in his beliefs. This seems to make him fell better about himself.
>>
>>Bjorn
>
>Slowly and reluctantly I am being forced to agree with Chuck. This man IS an
>idiot.

Yes, you are right, of course. Especially since I am sure that your
definition of idiot would make me one a priori.

 Bjorn, in a recent posting, said that he and I live in different
>universes. For this I am grateful. I would really dislike living in HIS
>universe.

Maybe our paths will meet one day. Don't rule it out.

Bjorn


From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 06:35:46 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 02:35:46 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606230838.AA01619@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 02:51 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I must be getting somewhere, for Bjorn is literally foaming at the mouth! If
>he's not careful one of these days he'll get so angry with me he'll have a
>CVA. For my part I am awed by Bjorn, never in my life did I ever imagine
>anyone could be so smug, self-righteous, and utterly self-satisfied. He's
>almost as bad as Pat Robertson.
>
>alex

Alex, where did your logic, semantics etc go?

In one sentence you say

>For my part I am awed by Bjorn, never in my life did I ever imagine
>>anyone could be so smug, self-righteous, and utterly self-satisfied.

Already in the next sentence you are contradicting yourself when you say:

> He's almost as bad as Pat Robertson.

If you think Pat Robertson is worse, which you say you do, you are obviously
able to imagine at least one person who is as smug etc, as myself. If you
are smart, you sure don't bother to show it in the way you are writing.

And, as a side remark, I am sure MANY people on this list can name at least
one person who they think is at least as "smug, self-righteous, and utterly
self-satisfied" as myself. No, it is NOT Pat Robertson.

As far as the foam goes: What happened to your psychic abilities? How come
you can't read my "vibes"?

Bjorn

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 06:43:15 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 02:43:15 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606230845.AA01667@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy


So, Chuck is going for it again. He puts me on his filter list and proceeds
to ridicule me for misspelling a word (he probably picked it up from Alex'
posting). A coward if I ever saw one!

Bjorn

>Alex,
>I think "volwe" is the official Darjeeling Council spelling of wolf.
> Apparently the Master Jesus is still illiterate, either that or the sacred
>ash fell out of his sleeve and an embarrassing moment again.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 21 15:27:03 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:27:03 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Unveiled Isis
In-Reply-To: <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606210030.AA21809@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 writes
>>Could you give the references in gospels that prove that
>>synoptics and John'gospel has a "decided discrepancy" about
>>duration of Jesus'ministry? I couldn't find such discrepancy.
>
It is a conclusion that can only be reached by reading through the
timing of events as recorded in the Synoptics and then comparing them
with John.  The mathematics give approx. 1 year contra 3 years.  This
discrepancy has been familiar to scholars for over 100 years in recent
times.

G.R.S.Mead, who was latterly HPB's secretary, wrote a book called "Did
Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" in which he revives some ancient views that could,
in the light of today's knowledge, tie "Jesus" in with the Dead Sea
sect.  Scholarship in general regard this as unlikely, though some "new-
agers" go for it (surprise!).

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 Sun Jun 23 11:07:53 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 06:07:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: The Messenger
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

John:
I was mentioned that the printing technology was one of the major
advances that took place in the last quarter of the century. I had always
thought, invention of microchip in 1975 is perhaps the major advance in
this century.

Anyone who has not recognized the power of the medium of Internet, is
blind to reality. The free and open nature of it and its speed is
something which has already made some deep and wide effect on the world.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From coallen@cris.com Sun Jun 23 15:48:29 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 11:48:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606231548.LAA02253@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 02:31 AM 6/23/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>I am afraid I must agree with the Vedas and also with the early words of
>Gautama. Absolute Truth is absolutely unknowable. Even that which is much
>less sententiously called "abstract truth" is not easy to know, and, IMO
>religion is the worst of all ways to approach it.
>>

I suppose I'd have to say it depends on what truth your actually talking
about.  If it's regarding the All, then I suppose I'd have to say that the
only way to know it is to absolutely not know it.  But there are smaller
truths to know and talk about.  The astral body for instance, I believe this
to be an absolute truth- it is there.

Personally, as far as religion goes, I think it's there to just keep people
on track (or at least try).

>
>>I never got the impression from any of Leadbeaters books that he worshipped
>>the masters.  As far as the prostration of people before Annie Besant, I
>>explain it with one word- craziness :-)  That is sad, I hope Theosophists
>>have evolved since then and don't do that anymore ;-)
>
>He (CWL) didn't? His language throughout his writings is redolent of
>worship. It's not just Edwardian hyperbole. In "The Masters and The Path" he
>speaks of "prostrating" himself at the feet of the Master "M". Now when an
>Englishman(even a lower middle class one such as CWL) prostrates  himself
>before some Human Being (and the English don't even prostrate themselves in
>front of their Monarch) then that Englishman is clearly "worshipping" the

As stated earlier, "prostrating" oneself at the feet of a master is not
worship, it's a show of respect.  The Japanese have quite a few customs
which westerners don't even consider.  Though when in a business (or
personal for that matter) situation with these people, their customs are
respected.  It's simply a show of respect.

>>
>>That's all I was trying to get across in my original message- that there is
>>a set of writings that could be considered to be "Core Theosophy".
>
>But which set?
>>

Personally, my core set consists of the works of AE Powell and The Secret
Doctrine.  If someone were to ask me about Theosophy, I'd tell them to look
at The Key to Theosophy.  If someone wanted to know the mechanics of
Theosophy's views of reality, I'd tell them to look at either AE Powell's
works, or The Secret Doctrine (or abridgement if just curious).  Those are
the ones I started on, and I greatly respect them.  They've helped me fill
in the gaps on various other studies I've done over the years.

>
>I am a long time student of both semantics and philology and I have a really
>heartfelt devotion to the importance of precision in language. The problem
>with language usage is that careless usage can totally confuse the meaning
>of what the writer (or speaker) intended.
>>

Your correct, and I admit, I slack off on it at times.  

>>>
>>>If the entire Human Race sat around on their bottoms 24 hours a day and
>>>"meditated" the world would be an island of quiet and passivity, simply
>>>because no one was doing anything at all, but there would be no real harmony
>>>or peace. Real harmony an peace require active and intelligent participation
>>>and dedication and personal sacrifice. I adamantly believe that "good works"
>>>are infinitely more valuable than
>>>"Good Thoughts".
>>>>
>>
>>I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
>>hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
>>has to be that "good thought."
>
>Ah, but what is meant by the term "good thought"? How many definitions of
>that term are there?

Whatever it was you meant by the term "good action" ;-)

>>
>>>Chris: I am a theosophical historian and if you've been reading some of my
>>>other messages, and tuning into the thread on theos-list regarding CWL
>>>you'll find that some of the "theosophists who came before us" were insane,
>>>and some of them were terribly bad people.
>>>>
>>
>>I've been following the thread.  I've seen some of the key Theosophists
>>linked to various people who could be considered  bad.  But I haven't seen
>>any examples of any of these people doing anything "bad" other than being
>>associated with "bad" people.  Even if one considers them to be bad, that
>>still doesn't negate the importance of their work.
>
>Chris: It not only "negates the importance of their work" it negates
>everything about their work. Do you know anyone who considers the sexual
>molestation of pre-pubertal boys anything other than an extremely "bad
>thing"? If a person can't be trusted in one thing, is it wise to trust them
>in any thing? Is a man who abuses children a man who can be trusted as a

If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb too."

>spiritual guide? Is a woman who is (as you put it) "crazy" enough to

I never said that.  I said that the people who prostrated themselves
demonstrated "crazy" behavior.  If your going to be so picky on what words I
use and how I use them, then take them for how I use them.  Don't start
assuming I meant more than I said :-)

>encourage people to prostrate themselves to her, to be considered a reliable
>guide. Is a person whose sense of values is so skewed as to allow them to
>closely associate themselves with people like the Nazis, to be trusted as a
>teacher or guide? What all this does is throw into question not only the
>validity of their work but the veracity of their work. I am somewhat

Actually I usually don't tend to research the history of the writers of the
books I read before (or even after, usually) I read them.  I read them and
take them for what they are, or at least how I interpret them.  I don't try
to put them in their historical context to understand what the writer was
talking about at that time.  I try to make sense of it for my time.  I do
this at least for occult books anyway.

>flabbergasted at your comment "linked to various people who could be
>considered bad". Is that all you have to say about Adolf Hitler and company?

I consider them to be bad people.  I'm sure the Nazi's didn't consider
themselves to be bad.  How can I say that they were "absolutely" bad when
it's impossible, as you say, to know the "absolute" truth one way or the
other?  But, to be honest, isn't everything part of the All or the One?
Isn't everything supposed to be both good and bad?  Two parts of a spiral,
transforming good into bad and bad into good, yin and yang?  What we
consider good now, could be considered bad later, and vice versa.  Maybe the
act itself was bad, but what we learned from it good.

>>>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>>>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
>>>>I may say so :-)
>>>
>>>It's clearly your absolute right to say so, it is also my absolute right to
>>>say that, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense.
>>
>>Yes, I thought you might think as much.  It helps me to understand where
>>you're coming from.
>
>I think you will find that most people with legitimate scientific
>credentials consider it nonsense too. I am not a scientist in any way, but
>the scientists whom I do know, all agree with me.

I'm sure I would find that to be the case.  That's how most scientists view
the paranormal.  How do they feel about the soul or spirit?  The same way?
Or do they give that the "exception"?

>
>Each person must find his own "tool" to use in the process of
>transformation. I don't place any real value on "formal meditation" as too
>much of it, in my 30 years experience, is simply rote-ritual. For some
>people "drumming" takes it's place, for others some other thing they find
>personally useful, too many people by far are into "militant meditation".
>>

I agree.  Quite a few different methods may be used to reach the
"meditative" state.  I never implied I was talking about "militant"
meditation or "formal" meditation.

>>>Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
>>>as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
>>>it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative
>>
>>Again, a semantics issue.
>
>May I have your help in comprehending what you just said? Are you saying
>that because it is a "semantics issue" it's irrelevant?
>>
>>I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
>>message, how is Theosophy a process?
>>
>>Chris
>
>I'll insert my response before the commercial. < big grin>
>

 I'm gonna disable that darn signature file.

>Let me put this as simply and clearly as I can. Theosophy is a process
>because it is an intellectual catalyst which motivates a person to seek an
>understanding of abstractions concerning reality (truth), through study and
>experimentation by way of the "Three Objects". It is a process because it is
>an activity which a person must perform by and for themselves. It is a
>process because another person's understanding is not your own. It is a
>process because it's something which a person must DO, not learn about. Core
>Theosophy  is, as I see it, a total avoidance of the process. As I see it,
>"Core Theosophy" is a way people who don't want to go through the process
>themselves, try to get someone else to do it for them. But, unfortunately
>for them, that's not at all possible. It's a thing one must do totally on
>one's own.
>

When someone asks you what Theosophy is...what do you tell them?  Why are
there all these "Theosophical" books that talk about the "Astral" body or
the "Solar Logos"?  Are they not part of Theosophy?

Chris Allen


From coallen@cris.com Sun Jun 23 16:08:53 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606231608.MAA08401@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 02:51 AM 6/23/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>(primarily by way of this list) I am flabbergasted to learn how many people
>not only refuse to think for themselves, but how many people are afraid to
>accept responsibility for themselves. The seem to be drawn to "Core
>Doctrines" as a way to let someone else do their growing for them. Their
>little conceptual package is all gift wrapped and tied up in a big bow!
>

How does reading "Core Doctrines" allow someone else to do their growing for
them?  If it weren't for the "Core Doctrines" of mathematics I would think
you'd have a problem doing simple mathematics.  I have the feeling you
wouldn't have figured it out on your own   That's how each generation
evolves, they learn from the one before them, many times through books.

For someone who is ascending through the process of enlightenment so
successfully, you seem to be stumbling a bit by making the sarcastic and
snide comments to those who don't hold your point of view.  You seem to have
a problem with reading what people write, that must be why you misread, or
don't read, what I say and respond anway .

At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
>supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
>Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.

Don't be offended if I don't "prostrate" myself before you in the near
future ;-)

Chris
/*********************************************************
*                    Christopher Allen                   *
*              Systems Integration Specialist            *
* 2448 East 81st Street              coallen@tandata.com *
* Suite 3600                      http://www.tandata.com *
* Tulsa, OK  74137-4632             918.499.2801 Support *
*                                                        *
* Intelligent Logistics Solutions in OS/2 and Windows NT *
*********************************************************/

From coallen@cris.com Sun Jun 23 16:13:10 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:13:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606231613.MAA09343@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

  Bad, bad, bad, bad computer.

From wykedgod@cris.com Sun Jun 23 19:44:28 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:44:28 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CD9E9C.2ABE@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Karma
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've often wondered about Karma.  If everything has an equal and opposite reaction, isn't everything
just a reaction to the first action?  How do outside influences effect new action?  Can there even be
outside influences or is there just reaction?

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Jun 23 17:01:28 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:01:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Karma
In-Reply-To: <31CD9E9C.2ABE@concentric.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, Wycked God wrote:

> I've often wondered about Karma.  If everything has an equal and opposite reaction, isn't everything
> just a reaction to the first action?  How do outside influences effect new action?  Can there even be
> outside influences or is there just reaction?
>
> ~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
> "Are you ready for my wisdom?"
>

Karma is one of the most difficult things to fully know about. What we
all can talk about is some theoretical views.

Karma is generally thought to be something that has an equilibriating
principle  in that all actions do produce a response and the response
could be delayed for a long time.

Outside influences also can be considered as actions, but since we have
free will, there is a choice to respond or not.

The above is a novice's view and *not* based on first hand knowledge.

MK Ramadoss

From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 15:09:34 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 11:09:34 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606231712.AB05305@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 12:11 PM 6/23/96 -0400, Chris wrote:

>You (Alex) seem to have
>a problem with reading what people write, that must be why you misread, or
>don't read, what I say and respond anway .

He (Alexis) doesn't CARE about what people REALLY say. I have seen this time
and time again in every disagreement he has had. He is paying lip service to
the "religion of truth" but doesn't bother to quote or even read people's
comments with even a minimum of truthfulness.

Bjorn




From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 15:09:30 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 11:09:30 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606231711.AA05305@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 11:51 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:

Alex wrote:
>>Chris: It not only "negates the importance of their work" it negates
>>everything about their work. Do you know anyone who considers the sexual
>>molestation of pre-pubertal boys anything other than an extremely "bad
>>thing"? If a person can't be trusted in one thing, is it wise to trust them
>>in any thing? Is a man who abuses children a man who can be trusted as a

Chris wrote:
>If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
>trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
>dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb
too."

I agree with Chris here. Alexis wants to apply his black and white reasoning
on everybody. When he notices that they have done something that is (in his
opinion) decidedly "bad" then they have to be "bad", period. He doesn't see
the human dilemma. We are striving with our imperfections, we have higher
aspirations and base desires, sometimes side by side. There are countless
examples of people, like great artists and composers, who have brought forth
divinely inspired works, only to go and mess up their private lives by
uncontrolled negative emotion and ego idiosyncrasies. In Alexis' case it is
obvious that we have to deal with a person with serious flaws of character.
Should we judge him as a "bad" person, just because that is so? Indeed, one
would have to assume that A is aware of some of his negative and destructive
tendencies himself. Does he judge himself as harshly as he judges others?
Probably not. And I don't think we should either.

>
>>encourage people to prostrate themselves to her, to be considered a reliable
>>guide. Is a person whose sense of values is so skewed as to allow them to
>>closely associate themselves with people like the Nazis, to be trusted as a
>>teacher or guide?

So far, A has not been able to take this "Nazi connection" anywhere. There
may have been some contacts with this or that person who was a fascist. So
what? What did AB et al do in this context? Talking to a sinner is not
necessarily a sin. I'd like to see something more than the statement that
there was some friendly contact with a presumably "bad" person. Did AB
conspire to replace democracy with fascism? Did she help fund Moussolini?
What did she/they do, more than befriending this person?

>
>Actually I usually don't tend to research the history of the writers of the
>books I read before (or even after, usually) I read them.  I read them and
>take them for what they are, or at least how I interpret them.  I don't try
>to put them in their historical context to understand what the writer was
>talking about at that time.  I try to make sense of it for my time.  I do
>this at least for occult books anyway.

A very sensible approach. I happen to know about SERIOUS flaws in the
characters of R Wagner, Mario Lanza, Jussi Bjoerling etc. Does this mean
their music and singing are "bad"? Of course not. Come on Alex, get real.
Every person is a battle ground where good and evil fight. Sometimes we take
a stand for this side, sometimes for the other. This applies to you, me, AB
and everybody.

>>>>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>>>>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting one if
>>>>>I may say so :-)

I will try to get this book. Do you like it only for its "esoteric" content
or does it have any value from a more "scientific" view point?

Bjorn


From wykedgod@cris.com Sun Jun 23 20:10:14 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:10:14 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDA4A6.66C7@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Karma
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

m.k. ramadoss wrote:
>
> Karma is generally thought to be something that has an equilibriating
> principle  in that all actions do produce a response and the response
> could be delayed for a long time.
>
> Outside influences also can be considered as actions, but since we have
> free will, there is a choice to respond or not.
>

If Karma is an equilibriating principle in that all actions produce a response, couldn't we say that
everything but the first cause is just an effect of that cause?  And if so, can we be said to have any
free will at all?

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 16:50:56 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:50:56 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606231853.AA06052@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

Alexis,

next time you feel like calling me "idiot", "moron" or using any other
equally bland and dull insult, why not first go to

http://www.nova.edu/Inter-Links/cgi-bin/bard.pl

and get inspiration??!!

There you will find much more colorful and descriptive language, worthy of
your raging emotions! These are true Shakespearean insults, full of life and
originality!

Instead of idiot you could call for example call me,

YUO GOATISH BOIL-BRAINED JOLTHEAD!

It gives much greater satsifaction, doesn't it?

Then, of course I may respond by calling you

YOU FROTHY DREAD-BOLTED COXCOMB!

You may not like to hear that about yourself, but at least we have now
elevated the process of insulting each other to a much higher plane.
Especially since Shakespear now is an Ascended Master and surely is present
in the words of his writings from that incarnation! This way, regular
mudslinging will be transformed into throwing mud infused with gold dust!

Or what do you think, you gleeking rough-hewn moldwarp?

Bjorn


From coallen@cris.com Sun Jun 23 19:01:47 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:01:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606231901.PAA21949@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

At 02:53 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis,
>
>next time you feel like calling me "idiot", "moron" or using any other
>equally bland and dull insult, why not first go to
>
>http://www.nova.edu/Inter-Links/cgi-bin/bard.pl
>
>and get inspiration??!!
>
>There you will find much more colorful and descriptive language, worthy of
>your raging emotions! These are true Shakespearean insults, full of life and
>originality!
>
>Instead of idiot you could call for example call me,
>
>YUO GOATISH BOIL-BRAINED JOLTHEAD!
>
>It gives much greater satsifaction, doesn't it?
>
>Then, of course I may respond by calling you
>
>YOU FROTHY DREAD-BOLTED COXCOMB!
>
>You may not like to hear that about yourself, but at least we have now
>elevated the process of insulting each other to a much higher plane.
>Especially since Shakespear now is an Ascended Master and surely is present
>in the words of his writings from that incarnation! This way, regular
>mudslinging will be transformed into throwing mud infused with gold dust!
>
>Or what do you think, you gleeking rough-hewn moldwarp?
>
>Bjorn
>

LOL
That's a great website 
"Thou gleeking guts-griping flap-dragon."

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 23 19:29:00 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:29:00 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960623192900.006b4360@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

Well Bjorn just proved Chuck's point and made sure I'd agree with chuck. But
I don't really agree with Chuck for he say's Bjorn's an idiot, and a moron,
whereas I think he's totally nuts!

But what I'd really like to know is how a message identified as coming from
Christopher Allen turns out to originate with Bjorn Roxendol? I've got
Roxendol filtered so I won't have to be subjected to his drivel.

From coallen@cris.com Sun Jun 23 19:38:44 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:38:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606231938.PAA00257@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

At 03:25 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>But what I'd really like to know is how a message identified as coming from
>Christopher Allen turns out to originate with Bjorn Roxendol? I've got
>Roxendol filtered so I won't have to be subjected to his drivel.
>

Bjorn originally sent the message, which I assume you didn't see since your
filtering his messages out.  When I replied to the message, I quoted his
original message.  That's probably how you got it.

Chris

From coallen@cris.com Sun Jun 23 19:46:29 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606231946.PAA03687@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 01:15 PM 6/23/96 -0400, Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
>
>>>>>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
>>>>>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting
one if
>>>>>>I may say so :-)
>
>I will try to get this book. Do you like it only for its "esoteric" content
>or does it have any value from a more "scientific" view point?
>
>Bjorn
>
It's actually an interesting esoteric way of looking at chemistry.  More
acurately it discusses the clairvoyant findings of the various types of
molecules and atoms.  How they operate on an etheric level and how they work
into the evolutionary process.  It's interesting reading and hard to make
sense of at times

Chris.

From wykedgod@cris.com Sun Jun 23 22:51:53 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:51:53 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDCA89.5931@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS
References: <199606231946.PAA03687@darius.cris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Allen wrote:
>
> At 01:15 PM 6/23/96 -0400, Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>Exactly.  Another good point.  Many of the core writings delve into such
> >>>>>>aspects of physical reality.  Occult Chemistry is a very interesting
> one if
> >>>>>>I may say so :-)
> >
> >I will try to get this book. Do you like it only for its "esoteric" content
> >or does it have any value from a more "scientific" view point?
> >
> >Bjorn
> >
> It's actually an interesting esoteric way of looking at chemistry.  More
> acurately it discusses the clairvoyant findings of the various types of
> molecules and atoms.  How they operate on an etheric level and how they work
> into the evolutionary process.  It's interesting reading and hard to make
> sense of at times
>
> Chris.

If your interested in the Chemistry and Physics of theosophy and/or The Secret Doctrine, there's another book
you might want to take a look at.  It's called The Physics of the Secret Doctrine.  It discusses matter,
motion, electricity, et al from the viewpoint of a theosophist and bases it on writings of Blavatsky in the
Secret Doctrine.  The writer is William Kingsland, ISBN # 1-56459-253-7.

Quite interesting.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 17:59:01 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:59:01 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606232001.AA06597@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

At 03:26 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:

>But what I'd really like to know is how a message identified as coming from
>Christopher Allen turns out to originate with Bjorn Roxendol? I've got
>Roxendol filtered so I won't have to be subjected to his drivel.

On a more serious note: The "drivel" I am subjecting you to is only a faint
reflection of the much more intense harassment you have subjected numerous
people on this list to. In many cases they have, or are about to,
unsubscribe for this very reason. I have received numerous emails from
highly visible and respected list members as well as from others who
participate less in the discussions. One thing I have learned is that many
people here would like to participate more in the discussions, but do not
want to expose themselves to your harassment, and therefor remain more or
less quite, and/or unsubscribe.

Peace Be with You

Bjorn

PS Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to quote this message in a reply,
so it gets through Alexis filter.


From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 18:03:38 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:03:38 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606232006.AA06637@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 03:57 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>If your interested in the Chemistry and Physics of theosophy and/or The
Secret Doctrine, there's another book
>you might want to take a look at.  It's called The Physics of the Secret
Doctrine.  It discusses matter,
>motion, electricity, et al from the viewpoint of a theosophist and bases it
on writings of Blavatsky in the
>Secret Doctrine.  The writer is William Kingsland, ISBN # 1-56459-253-7.

Thanks for the tip! It would be great if "esoteric" and "material" science
could get to a point of compatability. This could lead to enormous progress
in science as well as to the correction of some misconceptions held by the
"spiritually" oriented.

Bjorn


From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 18:22:39 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:22:39 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606232025.AA06768@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

>>
>>Instead of idiot you could call for example call me,
>>
>>YUO GOATISH BOIL-BRAINED JOLTHEAD!
>>
>>It gives much greater satsifaction, doesn't it?
>>
>>Then, of course I may respond by calling you
>>
>>YOU FROTHY DREAD-BOLTED COXCOMB!
>>
>>
>>Or what do you think, you gleeking rough-hewn moldwarp?
>>
>>Bjorn
>>
>
>LOL
>That's a great website 

>"Thou gleeking guts-griping flap-dragon."

Wow, I bet Alexis would be FLATTERED to be called THAT!

But now, just as the fun really begins, Alexis quits! WHO am I now going to
hurl my new found insults to (on?). Any volunteer? I am even starting to
compose my own (with the help of my children). What about: "You foulmouthed
geekheaded slymeball?" No?? Well, I guess I can't compete with Shakespeare
after all!

Bjorn


From wykedgod@cris.com Sun Jun 23 23:17:32 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:17:32 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDD08C.5B86@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS
References: <9606232006.AA06637@alpinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
>
> At 03:57 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >If your interested in the Chemistry and Physics of theosophy and/or The
> Secret Doctrine, there's another book
> >you might want to take a look at.  It's called The Physics of the Secret
> Doctrine.  It discusses matter,
> >motion, electricity, et al from the viewpoint of a theosophist and bases it
> on writings of Blavatsky in the
> >Secret Doctrine.  The writer is William Kingsland, ISBN # 1-56459-253-7.
>
> Thanks for the tip! It would be great if "esoteric" and "material" science
> could get to a point of compatability. This could lead to enormous progress
> in science as well as to the correction of some misconceptions held by the
> "spiritually" oriented.
>
> Bjorn

No problem.  If your interested in looking for/at the connections of eastern philosophy and
modern science, you may also be interested in the book The Tao of Physics.  This book goes
into the similarities between the aforesaid and goes so far as to state that science is
finally starting to catch up with what the "ancients" knew long ago.  In fact many items
talked about in that book relate directly to The Secret Doctrine.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From wykedgod@cris.com Sun Jun 23 23:20:21 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:20:21 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDD135.5DFC@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)
References: <9606232001.AA06597@alpinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bjorn Roxendal wrote:
>
> At 03:26 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >But what I'd really like to know is how a message identified as coming from
> >Christopher Allen turns out to originate with Bjorn Roxendol? I've got
> >Roxendol filtered so I won't have to be subjected to his drivel.
>
> On a more serious note: The "drivel" I am subjecting you to is only a faint
> reflection of the much more intense harassment you have subjected numerous
> people on this list to. In many cases they have, or are about to,
> unsubscribe for this very reason. I have received numerous emails from
> highly visible and respected list members as well as from others who
> participate less in the discussions. One thing I have learned is that many
> people here would like to participate more in the discussions, but do not
> want to expose themselves to your harassment, and therefor remain more or
> less quite, and/or unsubscribe.
>
> Peace Be with You
>
> Bjorn
>
> PS Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to quote this message in a reply,
> so it gets through Alexis filter.

Forwarding as requested.  I've been on too many threads where people are afraid to comment on items
for this very reason.  Regardless as to whether or not it's actually happening, reality is as one
perceives it.  Let's not let personal attitudes interfere with good, open, honest discussion.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From wykedgod@cris.com Sun Jun 23 23:25:14 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:25:14 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDD25A.4925@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Plane/Nature/Essence correspondences
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've been working on a correspondence chart and am having difficulty with a couple of items.  Perhaps someone
on this thread might be able to help me.  Here's a portion of the chart:

Plane		Nature		Essence
--------	---------	----------
Logoic		?		?
Monadic		?		?
Atmic		Spiritual	Spirit
Bhuddic		Harmony		?
Mental		Intelligence	Thought
Astral		Feeling		Emotion
Physical	Energy		Matter

Anyone care to take a stab at the question marks?  This isn't the complete chart, if people are interested,
I'll post the complete chart.  But for now, this is what I have.

Thanks

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 23 20:32:48 1996
Date: 23 Jun 96 16:32:48 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry
Message-Id: <960623203247_76400.1474_HHL59-2@CompuServe.COM>

>Soon you and I may be asked to go through an examination to recertify
>that we have *learnt* Theosophy and many of us may flunk it because we
>have not understood the official version of Theosophy.
	But this is exactly what Judge did.  His exams are in
Echoes of the Orient Vol III.  Most of his students flunked, which
depressed him a bit, and kept him from giving out more of the
teachings.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 23 20:32:45 1996
Date: 23 Jun 96 16:32:45 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry
Message-Id: <960623203244_76400.1474_HHL59-1@CompuServe.COM>

Some comments to Richard:
>I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."
	A process, such as the search for truth, requires
some kind of techniques or practices.  Know any good ones?

>More simply,
>however, I am convinced that we have to hold fast to the idea that the
>Society includes both "dictionary definitions" (both small and capital T).
	I agree.

> Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
>pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
>stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
>Truth seekers out of the Society completely.
	First of all, it seems to me that this happens anyway, sooner
or later.  Very few real truth seekers over the last century have stayed
with the Society.  Most leave to form their own organizations.  Secondly, why
would Algeo want to do this?

>By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me that
>the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in mind for
>the general membership.
	I am sure that they did, especially in the beginning when
little theosophical literature existed.

>(~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
>originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
>perception.")
	I love this definition.  This is, indeed, the sole reason
for my using magic to map out the Gupta Vidya Model of our planetary
chain.

>By "weeding" the Society of members who do not necessarily
>believe all the "core doctrines" but who are nonetheless willing to consider
>knowledge which comes via theosophical epistemology, John and others (if this
>is indeed their purpose) may be pulling up much of HPB's most worthwhile
>future crop.
	It would seem so.  But again, why?  What is his purpose?

>Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
>may be a harbinger in this regard.
	His letter sounded to me like many recent postings on theos-l.

>Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
>John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
>teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
>to teach and promote those ideas?"
	The "theosophical teachings" include both doctrines and
processes.  I have to agree with Delahunt, although it is up to each
individual what to study and how much, and so on.  It is also up to
each individual which Path to tread.  Personally, if I had to find a path
(i.e., suitable techniques) from within the TS literature in order for
my own self-transformation, I would have left the TSs long ago, because
there is nothing there for me.  This is the main difficulty that I have with
"theosophy as process."  I find theosophy great for theory, and for
mental exercises.  But for real spiritual techniques, it is sadly
lacking.  So, I use techniques that I find elsewhere and then use
Theosophy for the theoretical background or worldview in which
to practice and understand them.  In my view, Tibetan Buddhism
offers many more useful techniques for spiritual development
than does Theosophy.  So, while I can agree with "Theosophy
as process" in a theoretical sense, I have been unable to
put this into practice successfully.  Altruism or "good deeds"
are something that we should always be doing as a matter of
course, without thought of reward, and I don't consider as a
technique.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI


From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 23 21:51:41 1996
Date: 23 Jun 96 17:51:41 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma
Message-Id: <960623215140_76400.1474_HHL57-2@CompuServe.COM>

> I've often wondered about Karma.  If everything has an equal and
>opposite reaction, isn't everything  just a reaction to the first action?
	According to Newton, every action (force) directed on
the physical plane has an equal and opposite reaction.  This has
nothing at all to do with emotions or thoughts.  In my Enochian
Physics, I rewrote Newton's third law to say: "For every action of the
I upon its Not-I there is a corresponding opposite reaction of the
Not-I upon its I."  This is the law of karma in its association with fohat,
and is true on all planes.  Basically, this means that any cause-effect
relationship works both ways between our Self (subjectivity) and our
 World (objectivity).  However, cause and effect (causality) cannot
account for everything that happens to us.

>Karma is generally thought to be something that has an equilibriating
>principle  in that all actions do produce a response and the response
>could be delayed for a long time.
	Doss, you are speaking the party line here.  I personally
disagree.  I would say that most action produces a response, but
not all.  In this, I am agreeing with Dzogchen of Tibetan Buddhism.
According to Dzogchen, some karma weakens over time to the
point where it may no longer need to produce an effect.  Also, if all
actions produce reactions, there would be no way to ever stop
the Wheel of Karma, and both Vedanta and Buddhism agree
that one's personal karma can be eliminated.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From wykedgod@cris.com Mon Jun 24 00:10:34 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:10:34 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDDCFA.6D7F@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Karma
References: <960623215140_76400.1474_HHL57-2@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

First off I'd like to say thank you to Mr. Schueler.  I've read Enochian Physics and enjoyed the book greatly
(though I must say I don't completely understand it- yet).  I haven't really delved into the study of Karma
yet.  I've just been casually curious about certain aspects of it.

Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> > I've often wondered about Karma.  If everything has an equal and
> >opposite reaction, isn't everything  just a reaction to the first action?
>         According to Newton, every action (force) directed on
> the physical plane has an equal and opposite reaction.  This has
> nothing at all to do with emotions or thoughts.  In my Enochian
> Physics, I rewrote Newton's third law to say: "For every action of the
> I upon its Not-I there is a corresponding opposite reaction of the
> Not-I upon its I."  This is the law of karma in its association with fohat,
> and is true on all planes.  Basically, this means that any cause-effect
> relationship works both ways between our Self (subjectivity) and our
>  World (objectivity).  However, cause and effect (causality) cannot
> account for everything that happens to us.
>

How does this work in the concept of the All?  Meaning, how does this law affect the All in it's first action?
 I would assume that it was the I, and the nothingness the Not-I.  The I created the wave upon the Not-I.
Couldn't everything be taken back to this first wave?  And if so, how does that effect free will?

> >Karma is generally thought to be something that has an equilibriating
> >principle  in that all actions do produce a response and the response
> >could be delayed for a long time.
>         Doss, you are speaking the party line here.  I personally
> disagree.  I would say that most action produces a response, but
> not all.  In this, I am agreeing with Dzogchen of Tibetan Buddhism.
> According to Dzogchen, some karma weakens over time to the
> point where it may no longer need to produce an effect.  Also, if all
> actions produce reactions, there would be no way to ever stop
> the Wheel of Karma, and both Vedanta and Buddhism agree
> that one's personal karma can be eliminated.
>

Your over my head on this one.  I haven't put much thought into Karma because I haven't purchased a large
enough bottle of aspirin.  I'm not sure, but somehow I feel I'm going to get a big headache when I start to
think about it.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From wykedgod@cris.com Mon Jun 24 00:17:12 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:17:12 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CDDE88.7B64@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry
References: <960623203244_76400.1474_HHL59-1@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jerry Schueler wrote:
>         The "theosophical teachings" include both doctrines and
> processes.  I have to agree with Delahunt, although it is up to each
> individual what to study and how much, and so on.  It is also up to
> each individual which Path to tread.  Personally, if I had to find a path
> (i.e., suitable techniques) from within the TS literature in order for
> my own self-transformation, I would have left the TSs long ago, because
> there is nothing there for me.  This is the main difficulty that I have with
> "theosophy as process."  I find theosophy great for theory, and for
> mental exercises.  But for real spiritual techniques, it is sadly
> lacking.  So, I use techniques that I find elsewhere and then use
> Theosophy for the theoretical background or worldview in which

I agree.  I've been using theosophy to help expand my theoretical knowledge of my reality for
years.  It's great for providing theory.  I choose to use other methods for my spiritual
development.

~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 23 01:23:56 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 02:23:56 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry
In-Reply-To: <960622160746_561839383@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960622160746_561839383@emout09.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com
writes
>"If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
>teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
>to teach and promote those ideas?"
>
>Did you catch the subtle machination in the second part of the sentence?
> While we are undoubtedly all open to study etc., where in THE THREE OBJECTS
>does it say anything about a "official mission" to teach and promote HPB's
>ideas?  I can perhaps live with this as the sort of  "quiet understanding" it
>has been for over a hundred years; however, the new fatuous and/or mendacious
>overtness regarding this subject is pretty amazing and depressing.

"Depressing" is an understatement - someone sent me a xerox if this
article (I am in UK).  As a result of reading it I ask the general
question:

If "... the Masters can and will use us in their work" then:

Who is using the Masters for *their* work, and by what authority do any
kind of Masters operate in the first place?

Seems to me that the answer(s) to such questions are kind of crucial ...

I am not at all sure that I want "many more vibrant outposts of the
Masters' consciousness" until I have more information about these
people.  Anyone want to be a vibrant outpost of *my* consciousness?

I hope 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 Sun Jun 23 22:50:10 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:50:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Karma
In-Reply-To: <960623215140_76400.1474_HHL57-2@CompuServe.COM>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote:

> > I've often wondered about Karma.  If everything has an equal and
> >opposite reaction, isn't everything  just a reaction to the first action?
> 	According to Newton, every action (force) directed on
> the physical plane has an equal and opposite reaction.  This has
> nothing at all to do with emotions or thoughts.  In my Enochian
> Physics, I rewrote Newton's third law to say: "For every action of the
> I upon its Not-I there is a corresponding opposite reaction of the
> Not-I upon its I."  This is the law of karma in its association with fohat,
> and is true on all planes.  Basically, this means that any cause-effect
> relationship works both ways between our Self (subjectivity) and our
>  World (objectivity).  However, cause and effect (causality) cannot
> account for everything that happens to us.
>
> >Karma is generally thought to be something that has an equilibriating
> >principle  in that all actions do produce a response and the response
> >could be delayed for a long time.
> 	Doss, you are speaking the party line here.  I personally
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> disagree.  I would say that most action produces a response, but
^^^^^^^^^^^
> not all.  In this, I am agreeing with Dzogchen of Tibetan Buddhism.
> According to Dzogchen, some karma weakens over time to the
> point where it may no longer need to produce an effect.  Also, if all
> actions produce reactions, there would be no way to ever stop
> the Wheel of Karma, and both Vedanta and Buddhism agree
> that one's personal karma can be eliminated.
>
> 	Jerry S.
> 	Member, TI
>
>

Jerry: No problem at all. Until such time each one of us
can have a first hand personal understanding of the totality of the
functioning of Karma in all its aspects, we can collect all available
view points and keep them as theories. Even if one of us gets a full
understanding as above, it may not be communicatable to others.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Sun Jun 23 20:57:02 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:57:02 -0400
From: Bjorn Roxendal 
Message-Id: <9606232259.AA07681@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Web pages

We do have enough of "Key to Theosophy" in ASCII to start coding it for web
publishing. It would be good with some rather short introductory articles,
well written for a wide public, to lead up to the actual KtT pages. Anyone
willing to contribute? Does anybody have information about already written
articles that we could ask for permission to publish?

Bjorn


From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 23 22:04:51 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:04:51 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: How many Theosophists?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960623071814.006b9ac8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

So ... take out the 30,000 members in India, what hevae we left?  Say
5,000 in the US, 1,500 in the UK - how many anywhere else?  It could be
that the non-Indian contingent is a slow as 10,000.

In message <2.2.32.19960623071814.006b9ac8@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>As to Theosophists; that's a tall order. I am told by Chuck Cosimano that
>there are 30,000 members in India (and believe it or not they are not ALL
>related to Radha Burnier) The TSA has, I am told some 5,000 members, the UTA
>is a problem because they have no members (they say) and no dues, and no
>organization. But Jerry E-H says they probably have about 1,000. The
>Pasadena group has even fewer (there are only 3 members in the entire San
>Francisco Bay area which contains over 5 million people), and most of the
>other national sections are under a thousand members each, so I think a
>rough estimate of 50,000 members is pretty fair. And so if we just "even it
>out": fifty thousand out of 5.5 billion is so tremendously insignificant
>it's amazing.

It's time to sign up for ...
---------
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 Jun 23 22:15:36 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:15:36 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Occult Chemistry
In-Reply-To: <9606231711.AA05305@alpinet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606231711.AA05305@alpinet.net>, Bjorn Roxendal
 writes
>I will try to get this book. Do you like it only for its "esoteric" content
>or does it have any value from a more "scientific" view point?

Excuse interruption ...

It is many a year since I read this book, but it depends heavily, if
memory serves me well, on Leadbeater's "psychic" observations, most of
which, with hindsight, are higly questionable in terms of anything other
than imaginative fantasy.  Scientifically, in the accpeted sense, it
probably has no value at all.

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 Jun 23 22:20:58 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:20:58 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Big Internet is Watching You
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960623192900.006b4360@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960623192900.006b4360@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>But what I'd really like to know is how a message identified as coming from
>Christopher Allen turns out to originate with Bjorn Roxendol? I've got
>Roxendol filtered so I won't have to be subjected to his drivel.

One way or another, the Internet will always get you - it has computers
working on this throughout the known universe (so the Masters just told
me).

Alan :-\
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 23 22:11:02 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:11:02 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Karma
In-Reply-To: <31CD9E9C.2ABE@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <31CD9E9C.2ABE@concentric.net>, Wycked God
 writes
>~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
>"Are you ready for my wisdom?"

What is it?

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From wykedgod@cris.com Mon Jun 24 02:51:10 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 19:51:10 -0700
From: Wycked God 
Message-Id: <31CE029E.31F7@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Karma
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:
>
> In message <31CD9E9C.2ABE@concentric.net>, Wycked God
>  writes
> >~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
> >"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
>
> What is it?
>

Wycked God is man, expressed as 10 (the five elements).  The dot stands for man's link to the
unmanifest.  Man, being inherantly wicked and arrogant, goes around purporting his own wisdom.
And that's where the name comes from.

P.S.  The three tilda's also have meaning.  Showing the three divine elements and their dual
nature.


~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
"Are you ready for my wisdom?"
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 23 21:53:25 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:53:25 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Forwarding A. Bain's Comments on HPB in Tibet
In-Reply-To: <960623002841_336660540@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960623002841_336660540@emout12.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Will you damned angels stop writing on my wall?!?!?
>
>Nebuchadnezzar

Wall? what wall?
---------
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 Jun 23 21:52:06 1996
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:52:06 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Teaching Theosophy in Lodges/Branches/Study Centers
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
"m.k. ramadoss"  writes
>what would happen if a group
>of members, all of them members at large, but meet regularly and carryon
>any kind of activity they want?

You would have TI at work on the ground - but you don't want to know
about that, do you Doss?

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From senzar@stic.net Mon Jun 24 06:13:53 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:13:53 -0500
From: senzar@stic.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion? (Part II)
Message-Id: <19960624061351515.AAA197@ras010.stic.net>



 The following copyrighted article is posted here with the
 permission of the author. The first part was posted several
 days ago. The second and concluding part follows. This will
 appear in the Canadian Theosophist, July - August 1996 issue.


 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



                  "... A Church On My Grave."
                           PART TWO
                         By S. Treloar
        (Copyright February 1996 by Stanford L Treloar)

 	Can a Theosophist go to church? One hears this asked on
 occasion. If Theosophy is a religion, as the question
 implies, the answer has to be no. The true occultist may see
 sufficient problems of revealed truth lacking in the exoteric
 religion of a church and not want to go. Others my like the
 atmosphere, and also see the truths veiled behind the
 exoteric parts of the religious service, and be able to get
 an uplift from the church service and its rituals. This need
 for rituals and a lighter, less-to-non-intellectual approach
 has led to the rituals brought in by the post Blavatsky E.S.
 The E.S. variously stands for Esoteric Section, Esoteric
 School, and for me, Elitist Section. I have never disguised
 my contempt for this group in general for abuses of power,
 snobbishness and a few other things better said in private.
 The charge that is elitist is born out by the fact that only
 E.S. members get into the hierarchy of leadership of the
 Adyarian T.S. It is not exactly democratic, as a member must
 take an oath of obedience to the Outer Head, who at the
 moment is (and historically most often is) the international
 president. The exception to the above statements has been the
 leadership of the Canadian division of the T.S. who have been
 against the E.S. in general, not withstanding plenty of E.S.
 members in the ranks.

 	The Canadian division, which being now independent, I
 will not refer to as the Canadian Section now, is the group I
 mostly refer to in this essay, as being the one most closely
 observed, starting when I was about 18. This Canadian
 division has been historically probably most conservative,
 fundamentalist T.S. group in the world. The simple version of
 Theosophy as put forth by Besant and Leadbeater and some
 others later, has been condemned by many Canadian T.S.'ers as
 being false and "Neo Theosophy". Some of the accusations are
 accurate and justified, some are not. In general I find that
 this form of theosophy, which I call "Besantine" theosophy is
 for most part a simplified form of what HPB brought forth,
 and some parts may contain organic fertilizer from the male
 cow. The Canadian Group, with its Loud Minority deciding what
 must be rejected, has been breaking apart from its
 crystallization before I was born. The first split was in
 1924 when the staunch E.S.'ers formed a separate section,
 recognized by Adyar, and which still exists today as the
 Canadian Federation of Theosophists, and is the official
 Canadian T.S. as recognized today by the Adyar Vatican. Not
 all E.S. members are found in the Canadian Federation, some
 were and are always in the Canadian Section, now independent.
 I always likened them to communists holed up out of sight,
 but potently waiting for the right moment to lead, in a trade
 union. The E.S. members are the most likely to be in favor of
 ceremonies, a religious aspect of theosophy, (not favored by
 HPB) and such ceremonies were looked down upon by the late J.
 Krishnamurti, who when asked shortly before his death, if he
 would ever join the T.S., replied (in part) ".... only if the
 T.S. gets rid of its ceremonies..."

 	Some theosophists believe that the whole truth of
 existence was given out by HPB, and that there has been none
 given out since her death, and that there can be no further
 revelation ever, obviously, since all has been revealed. On
 this the late Dr. Gina Cerminara, a theosophist and
 psychologist, (or perhaps psychiatrist) remarked "Some
 theosophists .... become as dogmatic and absolute in their
 theosophical opinions as the most orthodox christian
 fundamentalists. HPB fully recognized the dangers of such an
 attitude, foresaw that this might happen and warned against
 it in many passages of her work. "The *Secret Doctrine* is
 not meant to give any such final verdict on existence, but to
 lead toward the truth" - HPB in "How to Study Theosophy." Our
 theosophical fundamentalists cannot separate their religion
 making tendencies and desires from HPB's intent, and so the
 narrow views prevail, harden, and the T.S. breaks apart,
 predicted by a Master or several, and expected by this writer
 many long years ago. And it is breaking apart. Those who had
 to keep attached to Adyar, to save their souls, and perhaps
 keep their chances of getting into or staying in the "Golden
 Book", had to leave us here when the Canadian Section was
 excommunicated. Since then other groups known for ultra
 conservatism in leadership if not the entire membership, have
 broken associations and become independent, again predicted.

 	One hears the statement made at times, usually when
 someone dares to mention the name of some TS writer not on
 the accepted List (accepted by who? an arbitrary acceptance
 foisted by someone in the Loud Minority), "I thought that
 this was supposed to be a Blavatsky lodge (or Section, or
 whatever)? Again, accepted and by whose authority was it
 declared to be an HPB only? Examination will show that it is
 not in the by-laws, not in the Objects, and not in the
 Minutes of any Board meeting of any lodge or group. So the
 whole situation is the arbitrary set-up of the narrow
 fundamentalist types, foisted on the others, accepted by
 those who like to follow leaders, and those who object,
 either keep quiet or leave, Is this any different from the
 behaviour in a religious organization? This behaviour is
 exactly as can be expected from the 6th Ray personality,
 devotion to an ideal, as expressed through an imperfect 6th
 Ray type.

 	The purpose of the Solar Logos, or Deity or God, is to
 evolve. As the entire solar system is His body of expression,
 all its parts must follow and express His purpose. Evolving
 means change. "The only thing in this world that never
 changes is the fact that everything changes." Something new
 is change. If it is new, it is different, at least to some
 degree. If it is not different, it is not new. If something
 evolves, it must therefore appear changed, different, and so
 on. The conservatives cannot abide by change. An occult law
 states "that all change is painful": a psychological fact
 too.

 	If an new revelation or interpretation does not appear to
 have come from HPB's writings, our
 conservative/fundamentalist TS'ers reject it as "neo",
 "false", "pseudo" and so on. Unfortunately, they regard their
 judgments in that respect as coming directly from God, as
 they have that amazing ability to make such judgments without
 looking into the new too far, if at all. The new is sometimes
 rejected, an all too human and universal trait, because it
 did not come from the mind of the objector, the motivation:
 jealousy. New and different in theosophical thought must be
 wrong, even if it may be but a revelation of one of the many
 locks and keys that are blinds in the *Secret Doctrine*.
 Rejection of new is in the religious attitude, as anyone can
 see who looks over the standard behaviour of the exoteric
 crystallization and the break-up and ultimate death of the
 organization.

 	In the matter of crystallization, there is an interesting
 passage: "... the Great White Lodge and the Black Lodge - the
 one dedicated to the beneficent task of purifying and aiding
 all lives in the three worlds and the other to the
 retardation of the evolutionary forces and to the continuous
 crystallizing of the material forms ..."

 	The works and revelations of Alice Bailey bring forth the
 most violent reactions from the ultra-conservatives. First,
 there was extreme resentment by at least two women, Besant
 and Tingley, that Bailey was chosen and not them to write for
 a Master. Then her writings are new and therefore different,
 resented by the unchangeable, and above all, the Bailey
 writings, like the *Secret Doctrine* of HPB, are extremely
 difficult, with the real meanings well hidden. These
 revelations have considerable overtones in and of psychology,
 therefore the message therein was better brought forth in
 this century when the science of psychology is much better
 developed than at the time of HPB. I have yet to get an
 intelligent reason why Bailey should be so condemned by those
 who do, from those who do. That they do not and cannot
 understand her writings and revelations is patent. In the
 ultra conservatives there is an observable fear and feeling
 of being threatened, supplying energy to the condemnations.
 There will be a few more remarks on this later.

 	There is difference between theosophy based on:

 (a) HPB's writings only, and
 (b) one based on HPB's methods of broad pursuit of truth, and
 knowledge, never static.

 "a" is static and has to be and is the preferred mode of the
 6th Ray types, and is not evolution and cannot be: the second
 "b" mode can evolve.

 	Exclusiveness to the works and personality of HPB (see
 the enormous amount written of her history which energy could
 better be spent on interpretation) are the typical and
 psychological characteristics of a religion held, and held as
 being dutiful and virtuous to her memory and the only way to
 go. Certainly she deserves much, but Karma will reward her
 directly -- we need our energy spent on advancing ourselves
 and our fellows, not in hero(ine) worship. The problem is
 that HPB never instructed this behaviour from her ardent
 followers -- may have more than hinted that it was a human
 trait that should be grown out of -- she never suggested that
 she should be so set up as an object of such adoration so
 typical of religious followers. To her ardent followers, I
 again ask, why not follow her *example*? That would involve
 being broad minded, which most devotees to the Ideal, (6th
 Ray types) are not.

 	The Deva evolution is described as vertical: their
 energies travel up and down in a direct line from and to
 Deity. The human kingdom is said to be at right angles to the
 Deva Kingdom, and go horizontally, and thus we have the warp
 and woof of the fabric of the Deity in manifestation. The
 human goes along a street, a cul-de-sac no matter how long,
 and he/she polishes it by the experience encountered thereon
 and *contributes to it* by his interests on that horizontal
 line as long as he is content to stay there. It may be a
 lifetime. Mankind polishes a *cul-de-sac*. If he is
 progressive, he will, before death, move upward to another
 level of *cul-de-sacs*, lingering for a while, and may even
 go several steps upward before the lifetime is finished.
 Hopefully, in the next incarnation, the less progressive will
 incarnate at the next level up, and commence to polish that
 *cul-de-sac*. In the TS, Adyarian or separated varieties, one
 sees a lot of one level *cul-de-sac* polishers. Accepting a
 change can mean going to another level, -- upwards.

 	Truth is a many faceted gem, and too many only see the
 one facet or two that reflects the light from where they are
 standing, rather than seeing the whole gem. I used to think
 that this was my original thought, until I saw that HPB had
 also said it. Since there are very many ways to look at
 something, (I speak of ideas here) one wonders why the
 followers of HPB only, pay no attention to her good advice
 and revelations, such as the one just quoted here, instead of
 selectively taking something here and there, as might suit
 their predilections. As I said before, "she was a grand lady,
 with so many revelations for our development ... her greatest
 advocates are her greatest distorters." I can visualize her,
 if she were here to deal with these distorters, calling them
 the "Flapdoodlers" and their religion the Flapdoodle Sect.
 ("Flapdoodle" was one of her favourite words, when not using
 direct and deserved profanity, and the word is in the
 dictionary).

 	If it looks and acts like a religion, it probably is,
 even if its participants deny it. As with the ultra
 conservatism of most of the Canadian TS, when something is
 (self) regarded as correct, it is proudly boasted of, but if
 someone suggests it could be pejorative, the participants
 deny doing any such thing. The denial lie, predictable as it
 is ubiquitous.

 	When in my teens, I started a lifetime interest in
 psychology. As I could not then psychoanalyze people on a
 couch, I would then use a substitute method, at first for the
 purposes of proving if psychology was true. If I noted
 something interesting, I would proceed to ask certain
 questions, or steer the conversation a certain way to see if
 what psychology would predict for this situation would hold
 true. It always did. Then when I saw the interesting field of
 esoteric psychology, I jumped into that too. I used the same
 technique to see if it was valid. It has been thus far. The
 religionists and ultra orthodox of the TS members have been a
 great help in proving parts of what has been given out about
 the Rays, the 6th Ray in particular.

 	My contention is that Mme Blavatsky was quite broad
 minded and would never condone the narrow minded line that
 her TS has become. I could say, has degenerated to. This
 happened to Christianity, for it is not based on the
 teachings of the Christ as found in that religion's favourite
 book, the Bible, neither Roman Catholic or Protestant
 versions of christianity, and certainly not on that earlier
 form of Christianity, Gnosticism. I think HPB hoped that it
 would not go that way, but foresaw it, hence her wail, as
 quoted at the beginning of this essay. These words of mine
 will have no effect on the religionists in the TS if they are
 over 30 or perhaps 40. Man has a concrete mind, and the
 concrete sets at about age 20. Thereafter it takes hammer and
 chisel to change any set ideas. Concrete is a good example of
 crystallization, for in the version of concrete that is used
 in building, bridges and roads, etc., when concrete sets, it
 forms crystals as it turns to man-made stone. The changing of
 an organization by crystallization is not evolution. Perhaps
 some of our younger members will be able to see the need for
 a broad attitude, as stated by the HPB quote used earlier in
 this article. A past General Secretary of Canada, and a
 former editor of this magazine stated in an essay "Do not
 take any graven images of the mind", as an interpretation of
 the Biblical stricture against graven images in the Ten
 Commandments. The problem with human nature, speaking of the
 Ten Commandments, (written in stone) is that humans, if they
 do a thing twice, think that they have to do it unchangingly
 that way ever after, hence the saying, "Written in Stone".
 Some philosophers are more generous than I and say; "If a
 human does a thing three times, etc..."

 	Rigidness is symptomatic of a religion. In some places we
 see the term "source theosophy" used to show or define the
 correct and desirable form. What can this mean? One might
 think that it could be the first-use type of theosophy, as
 found, used and defined by Ammonius Saccas at the beginning
 of the Christian era, or mayhap its earlier use, as the word
 has been traced to about 200 BC and is claimed to have been
 used by St. Paul. This is not what the users of "source
 theosophy" mean. They mean Blavatskyian theosophy, however
 that might be described or defined. I doubt that HPB would
 like the use of the term in that way. In defining "source
 theosophy" one can see a problem in determining just who is
 entitled to make the definition. There are those who will
 (and do) define it, an arbitrary assumption of the right to
 define it. Does not this also happen, and be a prominent
 trait, in a religion? The Pope defines, and is infallible,
 yet other Christian groups offer other definitions for the
 same thing, and so the fights go on forever. The TS now has
 all the cute faults of a religion, and of which (religion)
 HPB had many things to find fault with.

 	The TS has been breaking apart, and this started with
 Judge, but I do not blame him for it, rather Besant, and
 mention it only to set a date. The Canadian group has been
 breaking apart since 1924, and with its boasted ultra
 conservatism, (but worded otherwise) it should be seen as
 inevitable. The blame will be placed elsewhere, including on
 me; the blame will be seen everywhere except where it is,
 which is in the ultra conservatism, and misplaced
 interpretation on certain chosen writers only, whether HPB or
 the Besantine outlook. Some groups in the TS place little
 emphasis on HPB, Besantine theosophy being preferred, as
 being easier. Countess Wachtmeister said that HPB while
 writing the *Secret Doctrine* said to her that someone in the
 20th century would write the psychological key to the *Secret
 Doctrine*. I suggest that this has been done, in Cosmic Fire
 by Alice Bailey. That is an opinion. But if it did not
 happen, was HPB or Countess Wachtmeister a liar? Not likely
 in either case. The narrow will never agree with me, as it
 goes counter to the religion aspect of theosophy today,
 suggesting a threat to consolidated beliefs in the oneness
 and onlyness (a word?) of the chosen brand of theosophic
 religion, Blavatskyism, Besantine, or even Judgeian.

 	The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "cult" as: a
 system of religious worship, devotion or homage to person or
 thing. What was once intended for concern with the occult is
 now tending to a cult.

 	In fear of change, someone remarked at a TS Annual
 Meeting, and was overheard, "... that the TS is being taken
 over by Roozycrewshuns! (sic) (Rosicrucians). There are a few
 members who are also Rosicrucians. I can see nothing wrong
 with this. On the contrary, a good sign. Are not Rosicrucians
 (an appellation but a few hundred years old) from a very
 ancient line of esotericists from which modern day Theosophy
 derives? Why did these alarmed members not worry when the TS
 was run by a Zen Buddhist? Or is it because HPB and Olcott
 became Buddhists, not necessarily Zen? I can visualize some
 Rosicrucians expressing fear "... that some of our members
 are being perverted over to Theosophy, and thus the
 Theosophists are going to take us over!" Where is the broad
 mindedness of HPB in Theosophists today? No wonder "... the
 Masters left the TS", (see D. Buxey, C.T. Mar. - Apr. 1996).

 	Alice Bailey asked in an early 1920's lecture: "Why
 should we (the TS) go back to Blavatsky when she is so far
 ahead of us?" "Let us go *forward* to Blavatsky: our
 Blavatskyites ("source theosophists") have gone back(wards)
 to her. Only by a broad study of all and any sources can we
 have any hope of finding the meanings hidden in the *Secret
 Doctrine*, so far as HPB gave out part of the secret
 doctrine, the rest we will have to find out for ourselves, as
 the great Plan intends we shall.


 -----------------------***---------------------
 To be published in The Canadian Theosophist, July-Aug 1996.

 Mailing address of Canadian Theosophist:
 R.R. No. 3, Burk's Falls
 Ontario P0A 1C0

From mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Mon Jun 24 15:18:56 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:18:56 -0500
From: "Michael W. Grenier" 
Message-Id: <31CEB1E0.5331@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion? (Part II)
References: <19960624061351515.AAA197@ras010.stic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

senzar@stic.net wrote:
>                   "... A Church On My Grave."
>                            PART TWO
>                          By S. Treloar
>         (Copyright February 1996 by Stanford L Treloar)...
>         My contention is that Mme Blavatsky was quite broad
>  minded and would never condone the narrow minded line that
>  her TS has become.

Has anyone here studied some of the early newsletters
and other publications that were put out by the Theosophical
Society during her lifetime? I'm thinking of Lucifer and other stuff.

I curious in the amount of material presented that does not
fit what we consider to be Theosophy. Did many other authors present
things that we might consider today to be completely out of line?
It would be interesting to see what information came out of the
group which did not come directly from the Theosphical Society
leadership and which might not have followed the party line. That
would be an indication on how broad the Society was back then.

   -Mike Grenier
    mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com
From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Jun 24 21:23:01 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:23:01 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CF0735.655B@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion? (Part II)
References: <31CEB1E0.5331@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael W. Grenier wrote:
>
> senzar@stic.net wrote:
> >                   "... A Church On My Grave."
> >                            PART TWO
> >                          By S. Treloar
> >         (Copyright February 1996 by Stanford L Treloar)...
> >         My contention is that Mme Blavatsky was quite broad
> >  minded and would never condone the narrow minded line that
> >  her TS has become.
>
> Has anyone here studied some of the early newsletters
> and other publications that were put out by the Theosophical
> Society during her lifetime? I'm thinking of Lucifer and other stuff.
>
> I curious in the amount of material presented that does not
> fit what we consider to be Theosophy. Did many other authors present
> things that we might consider today to be completely out of line?
> It would be interesting to see what information came out of the
> group which did not come directly from the Theosphical Society
> leadership and which might not have followed the party line. That
> would be an indication on how broad the Society was back then.
>
>    -Mike Grenier
>     mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com

I have lately been reading the early copies of the Theosophical
Path-1911/1926 and Henry Edge features in them all but so do quite a lot of
travelogues. There are articles and photos of many places in the world
unconnected with Theosophy and some articles on the philosophers and
gardening with the devas.
The old Lucifers are very broad in their essays. There are letters quite
critical of the Editor (HPB) and she responds sometimes nicely and sometimes
tells them a thing or two.
I don't think a partyline had started at that time but that seems to be the
way of most things.
Bee Brown

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Mon Jun 24 21:26:23 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:26:23 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CF07FF.78AD@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Tourist or Pilgrim
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills, in fact it is a set of 6, that was
done at the annual Queens Birthday Weekend 3 day seminars that are held in
Auckland. This one was 3 years ago and I couldn't go that time. The whole 3
days were called Guidelines for the Spiritual Life and the tape was The
Pilgrim Path, Preparing for the Journey, tape 1.
In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims. She then invited definitions of each
from the audience and some interesting ideas were presented. Tourists come
and look around and want to be entertained and expect to get their money's
worth whereas a Pilgrim comes to seek a way and is focussed on that. There
were many other examples but at the end she said that we should be careful
not to turn our Lodges into Tourist Attractions in our zeal to share our
wisdom. We need to preserve a place for the Pilgrim who's road is hard enough
as it is. She hit a cord within me as I have been thinking along the Tourist
Attraction notion to try to increase our membership but now maybe some real
quality stuff for the Pilgrims already within our Lodge may be wiser and more
profitable for us all.
Interesting stuff.
Bee Brown

From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Jun 24 23:17:28 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:17:28 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606250023.UAA24884@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim

Bee,

If you'd like an opinion, if you have enough people willing to facilitate or
what have you, I'd have some of both. That was the original idea anyway, to
have some public meetings & some just for the serious members. How many of
each during a month can be decided on by the group.

I had all tourists in my study center in Syracuse. Everything went fine as
long as I did it, and they could just come & take in whatever I had to
offer. That was ok to get started, but then I had a tresurer who didn't
collect donations, & a book agent who didn't want to order books, & when 1
of them agreed to conduct a program, he didn't prepare anything. So I just
stopped the whole thing. It's ok to give a side show to attract people I
think, but then a study center is supposed to promote serious study as well.

Liesel
........................................................................



>Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills, in fact it is a set of 6, that was
>done at the annual Queens Birthday Weekend 3 day seminars that are held in
>Auckland. This one was 3 years ago and I couldn't go that time. The whole 3
>days were called Guidelines for the Spiritual Life and the tape was The
>Pilgrim Path, Preparing for the Journey, tape 1.
>In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
>sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims. She then invited definitions of each
>from the audience and some interesting ideas were presented. Tourists come
>and look around and want to be entertained and expect to get their money's
>worth whereas a Pilgrim comes to seek a way and is focussed on that. There
>were many other examples but at the end she said that we should be careful
>not to turn our Lodges into Tourist Attractions in our zeal to share our
>wisdom. We need to preserve a place for the Pilgrim who's road is hard enough
>as it is. She hit a cord within me as I have been thinking along the Tourist
>Attraction notion to try to increase our membership but now maybe some real
>quality stuff for the Pilgrims already within our Lodge may be wiser and more
>profitable for us all.
>Interesting stuff.
>Bee Brown
>
>
>

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Jun 25 01:44:27 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 14:44:27 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CF447B.62B0@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
References: <199606250023.UAA24884@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

liesel f. deutsch wrote:
>
> Bee,
>
> If you'd like an opinion, if you have enough people willing to facilitate or
> what have you, I'd have some of both. That was the original idea anyway, to
> have some public meetings & some just for the serious members. How many of
> each during a month can be decided on by the group.
>
> I had all tourists in my study center in Syracuse. Everything went fine as
> long as I did it, and they could just come & take in whatever I had to
> offer. That was ok to get started, but then I had a tresurer who didn't
> collect donations, & a book agent who didn't want to order books, & when 1
> of them agreed to conduct a program, he didn't prepare anything. So I just
> stopped the whole thing. It's ok to give a side show to attract people I
> think, but then a study center is supposed to promote serious study as well.
>
> Liesel

Seeing them as tourists sort of gets a handle on the situation and that it's
ok if they come sightseeing but I used to get so disappointed when these keen
tourists didn't come back. I used to wonder what we weren't doing right but I
see now that there isn't a lot to be done until they stop being such
dedicated tourists. We have a lively study group of 6 going strong so that is
not bad in such a small Lodge.
Keep well
Bee
> ........................................................................
>
> >Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills, in fact it is a set of 6, that was
> >done at the annual Queens Birthday Weekend 3 day seminars that are held in
> >Auckland. This one was 3 years ago and I couldn't go that time. The whole 3
> >days were called Guidelines for the Spiritual Life and the tape was The
> >Pilgrim Path, Preparing for the Journey, tape 1.
> >In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> >sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims. She then invited definitions of each
> >from the audience and some interesting ideas were presented. Tourists come
> >and look around and want to be entertained and expect to get their money's
> >worth whereas a Pilgrim comes to seek a way and is focussed on that. There
> >were many other examples but at the end she said that we should be careful
> >not to turn our Lodges into Tourist Attractions in our zeal to share our
> >wisdom. We need to preserve a place for the Pilgrim who's road is hard enough
> >as it is. She hit a cord within me as I have been thinking along the Tourist
> >Attraction notion to try to increase our membership but now maybe some real
> >quality stuff for the Pilgrims already within our Lodge may be wiser and more
> >profitable for us all.
> >Interesting stuff.
> >Bee Brown
> >
> >
> >

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 02:01:18 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 03:01:18 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <0AT$yQAuh0zxEwC2@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion? (Part II)
In-Reply-To: <31CEB1E0.5331@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <31CEB1E0.5331@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com>, "Michael W.
Grenier"  writes
>Has anyone here studied some of the early newsletters
>and other publications that were put out by the Theosophical
>Society during her lifetime? I'm thinking of Lucifer and other stuff.

Not studied, naybe (there was an awful lot of it) but read some, yes.
In those early and no doubt heady days, contributions appeared from such
as W.W.Westcott, A.E.Waite and other later Golden Dawn people.  SOme of
those who left in 1908 at the time of the Leadbeater Affair were regular
contributors.  Much of what I *have* seen is pretty boring, but not all.
The TS was certainly far more eclectic and less dogmatic in those days -
it may even be true to say that "dogmatic theosophy" had yet to be
invented.

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 Tue Jun 25 03:13:29 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:13:29 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
In-Reply-To: <31CF07FF.78AD@whanganui.ac.nz>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:

> Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
	
> In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
	

Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
arbitrary thought that is.

Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
- but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
million for instances) a person's full immersion in
child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
- is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
*avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
*down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
*more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
"spirituality"?
	Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
*intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
							Regards, -JRC

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Mon Jun 24 01:12:13 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:08:36
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606240512.AA15122@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Heindel

>For: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)

e> Max Heindel. An important figure in one of the Rosicrucean Fellowships.
 When he wrote most of his books?  It's interesting, because his
conception closely meets theosophical, but rather Leadbeater or
Bailey than early theosophy.

e> There's even a webpage with many of his writings..
 Do you know an address?

W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev  2:5020/360.4 Fidonet

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Mon Jun 24 01:13:59 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:07:16
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606240512.AA15119@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Contributions of AB & CWL to Theosophy and TS

>For: alexis dolgorukii 

> Was it either moral or ethical to have put Jiddu Krishnamurti in a position
> in which he was driven to make such a speech? I don't believe it is possible
 Phenomenon of Krishnamurti is very interesting,  indeed. It's
simple to say - "gone crazy" but it doesn't explain all.  I've
read some of his books,  his philosophy reminds much charvaka,
or Epikurean.  But it doesn't exactly match.  There's interes-
ting  book about him by Mary Lutyens - "Life & death of Krish-
namurti".  She describes there new state of conscoiusness that
he got in 1929.  Her description reminds CWL's decription of a
buddhic consciousness.  So, i think, it's like you had a PC XT
computer  and migrated to Power Macintosh,  but forgot to copy
your software & text files.  So, he like Scarecrow, got "bran-
new" brains.  When a new consciousness is born, the first tho-
ught is "I am!" But it has no experience yet and  accepts  all
literally.  So, it isn't charvaka, but it's "buddhic charvaka"
- materialism on a new whirl of spiral. He denies path and de-
nies master because teaching & learning is a "proccess".  It's
because there's no "first" or "second" in buddhi - there's all
"at once". All "manasic" with "why" and "because" left behind.
But in case of normal developement it should be  transmutated,
in case of Krishnamurti if was simply forgotten,  left inside,
like an astral activity is kept inside in case of ordinary pe-
ople.

W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev  2:5020/360.4 Fidonet

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Mon Jun 24 01:14:19 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:08:09
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606240512.AA15121@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Ether

>For: eldon@theosophy.com

Hello Eldon!

>Yes, there is no "ether" in the sense in which it was
>originally described.  But today's science now knows for

e> At normal temperatures, I'm not sure if space (of this
e> plane) is completely filled with particles. And when
e> you consider something as a wave rather than as a
e> particle, it may be hard to pinpoint a position for it,

  Here in Russia many scientists study ether practically and
develop ether-based theories, but their works aren't still
acnowledged on official level. Their theories sometimes differ
each from another but they match in opinion that relativity
theory was the greatest humbug of the century.
  Our scientists have different opinions on ether, but when
comparing them, it would be clear that they discoveres different
quanifications of ether, known in theosophy as Ether I, II, III, IV.
Some deny word "ether" at all, using the term "vacuum as super-
dense degenerated medium", but their descreption of this "vacuum"
is close to theosophical ether. They avoid the term "ether", be-
cause it's far from ether of XIX century science.
  Well-known Michelson-Morley experiment failed because of presence
of atmosphere. Since ether is a basis of any dense matter, as Lead-
beater wrote, one cant find it moving when air don't move.
  More fine experimets made by Miller in 1920s and Chankin in 1980s
showed that absolute movement of Earth through a world ether exists,
but it's less than theoretically calculated.
  In 1995 V. Ilyin using laboratory unit measuring frequency difference
between two lasers, found that an absolute Earth velosity is 56400 km/sec.
Direction of moving closely matches Millers results. He found also that
oscillating processes in the Sun affect measuring result. In theosophical
interpretation it should mean that etheric aura of the Sun "breathes".

W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev  2:5020/360.4 Fidonet

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

P.S. I'm sorry for long delay in replying these three messages.
     Send to me an CC: using address given above if you wanna
     speedup reply process :)

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Mon Jun 24 01:14:39 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:07:45
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606240512.AA15120@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Origen


For: 

 Hello!

A> Observe that Origen never speak of reincarnation but pre existence of souls
 Note that original text of "DE PRINCIPIIS" no longer exists.
You've probably read translation made by Rufin, who "corrected"
Origens works, as he said himself, excluding most heretic thoughts.
But there are fragments which still exist in greek that more
srtictly say about reincarnation. (Some qoutes below are from
Rufins text, too).

"And like those who're dying in this world because of separation
of body & soul get different places in hell, corresponding to
their deeds, similiar way, maybe, those who, so to speak, die
there [in hell], go down to this world's hell.
.
Each of those who comes down to earth, corresponding to what he
earned before or a place which he took there, should be born here
in a different countries, among different nations...
It occures often by this that Israely man gets into Skythes, and a
poor Egyptian moved to Iudea."
(IV,23)

  Even more, Origen believed in manvantaras:

"We believe that after destroying of this world there will be
a new one, like before this world there were other worlds."
(III, 5, 3).

Fotios who was probaply a last man which has read "De principiis" in
full greek original writes:
"Have read Origens books de Principiis. First of them is on Father,
Son & Holy Spirit. Here Origen heretizes very much, saying that Son
is created by Father, and a Holy Spirit - by Son, and Fathers acti-
on spreads on all existing, Sons - only on thinking beings, & acti-
on of Holy Spirit spreads only on saved ones. He says other, too -
very meaningless and full of dishonest - rambling about reincarna-
tions*, about stars which have souls and about many other things li-
ke this."

(he writes that a stars earned contemporary star-bodies because their
 previous actions, too)
______
* Here stands a russian word that may me directly translated as
"soultransmigrations"

So, if a christian, which may be even not acquainted with eastern
teachings have found there doctrine of reincarntion, it proves
that in original text it was clearly outlined, because Fotios
had no reason to "guess" it like we do - a contrary, he wasn't
agree with these & other conceprions of Origen.

Note that Origen makes difference between soul, mind and sprirt,
as theosophists do.
  "Because of that with infinite care we have to investigate:
will souls stop being souls, when saved and reach bliss life?
As Lord & Savior has come to find & save ruined for it will
cease to be ruined, then a soul, too, which is ruined, and
for which salvation Lord has come, maybe stop being a soul.
.
Mind, because of falling, became a soul, and contrary, soul,
learning Good & correcting itself, becomes a mind."
(II.8.3) (From quotes made by st. Ieronim)

"It's seen from this that a soul is a middle state between a week
flesh and good spirit" (II.8.4)

 From above follows that indeed, Origen didn't write about Cardec-style
"reincarnation of soul", and it makes some people think that he denies
reincarnation at all.
He writes that animals have souls, too, which means that "soul"
(psykhe) in his system is something like kama-rupa.

W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev  2:5020/360.4 Fidonet

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Mon Jun 24 01:15:02 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:08:51
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606240512.AA15123@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Golem

>For: Drpsionic@aol.com

D> No, a golem, at least traditionally, was a physical thing rather than a
 Yes, i agree.  Probably it would be better to call it "Yantra-purusha"
Maybe it will be more exact term.

D> Now even that is changing with the work of a woman in
D> New Orleans, whose name I can never remember, who has created a statue that
D> acts as a focus for necrotic energy that she calls her Golem.
 AFAIK, the original Golem was made in the middle ages in Praha,
Czechoslovakia, by a jewish kabbalist, whose name I've forgotten, too.

  Konstantin

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Mon Jun 24 01:27:15 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:09:08
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606240512.AA15126@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Re: Freedom!!!!!

>For: Bjorn Roxendal 

b>the Holy Spirit is so tangible and real that it has an enormously uplifting
b>and inspiring effect on me to read his biography. Is he deluded? Is he a
b>victim of "glamour" etc? Read and judge for yourself.
 I didn't read particulary this, but we should always remember
about so called "mirror sphere". According to rosecruicians, it's
located between rupa & arupa manas (or between manas & buddhi - i
hesitate) and makes people think that they see high planes, since
they see only reflection of lower worlds. Maybe CWL was a victim
of that sphere.

b>I do not claim to be an occultist, and I believe that the occult
b>rules have changed during the last 100 years.
 It sounds surprising ;)

  Konstantin.

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:40:00 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:40:00 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624013959_337538361@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alan,
"in the service of the Mistresses"???
Alan, I didn't know you were into that.  Of course, I'm a top, myself.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:40:22 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:40:22 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624014021_337538420@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Gert,
YOU BETTER DUCK!

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:40:08 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:40:08 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624014007_337538436@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

Alex,
Bjorn is WORSE that Pat Robertson.  Pat is merely a Xian, while Bjorn claims
to be a Theosophist.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:40:23 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:40:23 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624014022_337538454@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
Does it look like a box on wheels and is it driven by cowards who wear seat
belts?

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:39:31 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:39:31 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624013931_337538476@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: How many Theosophists?

Alex,
I said 13,000 members in India.  We need a better phone line.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:40:20 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:40:20 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624014019_337538488@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Karma

Well,
It all began with this caveman in Atlantis who sneezed.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:40:33 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:40:33 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624014033_337538512@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

Alex,
Your forgot "a prating coxcomb."

Chuck the Heretic
From RIhle@aol.com Mon Jun 24 05:42:17 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:42:17 -0400
From: RIhle@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624014215_141438395@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry



>Jerry Schueler writes>

>A process, such as the search for truth, requires
>some kind of techniques or practices.  Know any good ones?

Richard Ihle writes>
Psychogenetic prayer.

>>RI>>
>> Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
>>pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
>>stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
>>Truth-seekers out of the Society completely.

JS>	First of all, it seems to me that this happens anyway, sooner
>or later.  Very few real truth seekers over the last century have stayed
>with the Society.  Most leave to form their own organizations.  Secondly,
why
>would Algeo want to do this?

RI>
I agree we have lost many seekers.

Why would Algeo want to squeeze the general Truth-seekers out of the Society?
 I am not sure that he realizes he is trying to do that.  He and others may
be just thinking that they are "saving" the Society by reasserting its
connection to HPB and the doctrines she presented.

In recent years I believe that a great fear has grown up in the inner circles
of the TS.  This fear is that the Society could be in danger of being taken
over by a relatively small number of people who might not agree with the
"Secret Codicil" which has been attached to THE THREE OBJECTS for many years
now.  It is this hitherto largely unspoken addition to the stated tripartite
organizing principles which seems to allow those in charge to come up with
"World Views," "Schools of Approved Theosophy," and various control/filter
mechanisms.

In Madison, I had lunch with Dorothy Abbenhouse about the time the proposed
provision that the president of the American Section could only be someone
who had served on the Board.  In her explanation to me, she actually used the
phrase "otherwise we could ~lose~ the Society someday."  The irony of the
situation is that I actually agreed with her.  It never dawned upon me that
this could turn into a hell of a congealed mess if we started getting nothing
but a succession of presidents who regarded the freer-thinking,
epistemological-type theosophists as their ~enemies~.

>>RI>>
>>By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me
>>that the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in
mind for the >>general membership.  (~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at
least originally, by >>transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or
higher perception.")

>JS>
>I am sure that they did, especially in the beginning when
>little theosophical literature existed.

RI>
If Joy Mills had insisted that the ~Theosophical~ in ~The Theosophical
Society~ really stood for specific doctrines rather than a general sympathy
with theosophical epistemology, I would have never joined the Society.  I
would have not been an automatic believer; nor would I have consented to be a
second-class member until I was a first-class believer.

>>RI>>
>>Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
>>John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of
>>Theosophical teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society
whose >>mission it is to teach and promote those ideas?"

>JS>
>The "theosophical teachings" include both doctrines and processes.  I have
to agree >with Delahunt, although it is up to each individual what to study
and how much, and so >on.  It is also up to each individual which Path to
tread.

RI>
Again, the problem is not being open to study the ideas, but rather, going
along with the premise that the Society's ~outer~ mission is to teach and
promote only certain approved ideas.  You probably agree with Delahunt if the
statement could be fleshed out thus:  ". . .Society whose mission it is to
teach and promote those ideas [and others, as they may be personally
understood by individuals, including Jerry Schueler]."

On the other hand, I think it is more likely that the statement reads like
this--now and for the foreseeable future:  ". . .Society whose mission it is
to teach and promote those ideas [which Jerry Schueler probably writes about
in official-close-enough agreement with HPB maybe 37% of the time]."

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle

From jem@vnet.net Mon Jun 24 05:57:46 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John E. Mead" 
Message-Id: <199606240557.BAA12897@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: digest mode as a default

hi -

I think I will reset the theos-l list default mail mode to digest.

if there are divergent comments .. let me know.

peace -

john e. m.

p.s. it will not affect any of the current subscribers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------
From senzar@stic.net Mon Jun 24 06:13:53 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:13:53 -0500
From: senzar@stic.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion? (Part II)
Message-Id: <19960624061351515.AAA197@ras010.stic.net>



 The following copyrighted article is posted here with the
 permission of the author. The first part was posted several
 days ago. The second and concluding part follows. This will
 appear in the Canadian Theosophist, July - August 1996 issue.


 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



                  "... A Church On My Grave."
                           PART TWO
                         By S. Treloar
        (Copyright February 1996 by Stanford L Treloar)

 	Can a Theosophist go to church? One hears this asked on
 occasion. If Theosophy is a religion, as the question
 implies, the answer has to be no. The true occultist may see
 sufficient problems of revealed truth lacking in the exoteric
 religion of a church and not want to go. Others my like the
 atmosphere, and also see the truths veiled behind the
 exoteric parts of the religious service, and be able to get
 an uplift from the church service and its rituals. This need
 for rituals and a lighter, less-to-non-intellectual approach
 has led to the rituals brought in by the post Blavatsky E.S.
 The E.S. variously stands for Esoteric Section, Esoteric
 School, and for me, Elitist Section. I have never disguised
 my contempt for this group in general for abuses of power,
 snobbishness and a few other things better said in private.
 The charge that is elitist is born out by the fact that only
 E.S. members get into the hierarchy of leadership of the
 Adyarian T.S. It is not exactly democratic, as a member must
 take an oath of obedience to the Outer Head, who at the
 moment is (and historically most often is) the international
 president. The exception to the above statements has been the
 leadership of the Canadian division of the T.S. who have been
 against the E.S. in general, not withstanding plenty of E.S.
 members in the ranks.

 	The Canadian division, which being now independent, I
 will not refer to as the Canadian Section now, is the group I
 mostly refer to in this essay, as being the one most closely
 observed, starting when I was about 18. This Canadian
 division has been historically probably most conservative,
 fundamentalist T.S. group in the world. The simple version of
 Theosophy as put forth by Besant and Leadbeater and some
 others later, has been condemned by many Canadian T.S.'ers as
 being false and "Neo Theosophy". Some of the accusations are
 accurate and justified, some are not. In general I find that
 this form of theosophy, which I call "Besantine" theosophy is
 for most part a simplified form of what HPB brought forth,
 and some parts may contain organic fertilizer from the male
 cow. The Canadian Group, with its Loud Minority deciding what
 must be rejected, has been breaking apart from its
 crystallization before I was born. The first split was in
 1924 when the staunch E.S.'ers formed a separate section,
 recognized by Adyar, and which still exists today as the
 Canadian Federation of Theosophists, and is the official
 Canadian T.S. as recognized today by the Adyar Vatican. Not
 all E.S. members are found in the Canadian Federation, some
 were and are always in the Canadian Section, now independent.
 I always likened them to communists holed up out of sight,
 but potently waiting for the right moment to lead, in a trade
 union. The E.S. members are the most likely to be in favor of
 ceremonies, a religious aspect of theosophy, (not favored by
 HPB) and such ceremonies were looked down upon by the late J.
 Krishnamurti, who when asked shortly before his death, if he
 would ever join the T.S., replied (in part) ".... only if the
 T.S. gets rid of its ceremonies..."

 	Some theosophists believe that the whole truth of
 existence was given out by HPB, and that there has been none
 given out since her death, and that there can be no further
 revelation ever, obviously, since all has been revealed. On
 this the late Dr. Gina Cerminara, a theosophist and
 psychologist, (or perhaps psychiatrist) remarked "Some
 theosophists .... become as dogmatic and absolute in their
 theosophical opinions as the most orthodox christian
 fundamentalists. HPB fully recognized the dangers of such an
 attitude, foresaw that this might happen and warned against
 it in many passages of her work. "The *Secret Doctrine* is
 not meant to give any such final verdict on existence, but to
 lead toward the truth" - HPB in "How to Study Theosophy." Our
 theosophical fundamentalists cannot separate their religion
 making tendencies and desires from HPB's intent, and so the
 narrow views prevail, harden, and the T.S. breaks apart,
 predicted by a Master or several, and expected by this writer
 many long years ago. And it is breaking apart. Those who had
 to keep attached to Adyar, to save their souls, and perhaps
 keep their chances of getting into or staying in the "Golden
 Book", had to leave us here when the Canadian Section was
 excommunicated. Since then other groups known for ultra
 conservatism in leadership if not the entire membership, have
 broken associations and become independent, again predicted.

 	One hears the statement made at times, usually when
 someone dares to mention the name of some TS writer not on
 the accepted List (accepted by who? an arbitrary acceptance
 foisted by someone in the Loud Minority), "I thought that
 this was supposed to be a Blavatsky lodge (or Section, or
 whatever)? Again, accepted and by whose authority was it
 declared to be an HPB only? Examination will show that it is
 not in the by-laws, not in the Objects, and not in the
 Minutes of any Board meeting of any lodge or group. So the
 whole situation is the arbitrary set-up of the narrow
 fundamentalist types, foisted on the others, accepted by
 those who like to follow leaders, and those who object,
 either keep quiet or leave, Is this any different from the
 behaviour in a religious organization? This behaviour is
 exactly as can be expected from the 6th Ray personality,
 devotion to an ideal, as expressed through an imperfect 6th
 Ray type.

 	The purpose of the Solar Logos, or Deity or God, is to
 evolve. As the entire solar system is His body of expression,
 all its parts must follow and express His purpose. Evolving
 means change. "The only thing in this world that never
 changes is the fact that everything changes." Something new
 is change. If it is new, it is different, at least to some
 degree. If it is not different, it is not new. If something
 evolves, it must therefore appear changed, different, and so
 on. The conservatives cannot abide by change. An occult law
 states "that all change is painful": a psychological fact
 too.

 	If an new revelation or interpretation does not appear to
 have come from HPB's writings, our
 conservative/fundamentalist TS'ers reject it as "neo",
 "false", "pseudo" and so on. Unfortunately, they regard their
 judgments in that respect as coming directly from God, as
 they have that amazing ability to make such judgments without
 looking into the new too far, if at all. The new is sometimes
 rejected, an all too human and universal trait, because it
 did not come from the mind of the objector, the motivation:
 jealousy. New and different in theosophical thought must be
 wrong, even if it may be but a revelation of one of the many
 locks and keys that are blinds in the *Secret Doctrine*.
 Rejection of new is in the religious attitude, as anyone can
 see who looks over the standard behaviour of the exoteric
 crystallization and the break-up and ultimate death of the
 organization.

 	In the matter of crystallization, there is an interesting
 passage: "... the Great White Lodge and the Black Lodge - the
 one dedicated to the beneficent task of purifying and aiding
 all lives in the three worlds and the other to the
 retardation of the evolutionary forces and to the continuous
 crystallizing of the material forms ..."

 	The works and revelations of Alice Bailey bring forth the
 most violent reactions from the ultra-conservatives. First,
 there was extreme resentment by at least two women, Besant
 and Tingley, that Bailey was chosen and not them to write for
 a Master. Then her writings are new and therefore different,
 resented by the unchangeable, and above all, the Bailey
 writings, like the *Secret Doctrine* of HPB, are extremely
 difficult, with the real meanings well hidden. These
 revelations have considerable overtones in and of psychology,
 therefore the message therein was better brought forth in
 this century when the science of psychology is much better
 developed than at the time of HPB. I have yet to get an
 intelligent reason why Bailey should be so condemned by those
 who do, from those who do. That they do not and cannot
 understand her writings and revelations is patent. In the
 ultra conservatives there is an observable fear and feeling
 of being threatened, supplying energy to the condemnations.
 There will be a few more remarks on this later.

 	There is difference between theosophy based on:

 (a) HPB's writings only, and
 (b) one based on HPB's methods of broad pursuit of truth, and
 knowledge, never static.

 "a" is static and has to be and is the preferred mode of the
 6th Ray types, and is not evolution and cannot be: the second
 "b" mode can evolve.

 	Exclusiveness to the works and personality of HPB (see
 the enormous amount written of her history which energy could
 better be spent on interpretation) are the typical and
 psychological characteristics of a religion held, and held as
 being dutiful and virtuous to her memory and the only way to
 go. Certainly she deserves much, but Karma will reward her
 directly -- we need our energy spent on advancing ourselves
 and our fellows, not in hero(ine) worship. The problem is
 that HPB never instructed this behaviour from her ardent
 followers -- may have more than hinted that it was a human
 trait that should be grown out of -- she never suggested that
 she should be so set up as an object of such adoration so
 typical of religious followers. To her ardent followers, I
 again ask, why not follow her *example*? That would involve
 being broad minded, which most devotees to the Ideal, (6th
 Ray types) are not.

 	The Deva evolution is described as vertical: their
 energies travel up and down in a direct line from and to
 Deity. The human kingdom is said to be at right angles to the
 Deva Kingdom, and go horizontally, and thus we have the warp
 and woof of the fabric of the Deity in manifestation. The
 human goes along a street, a cul-de-sac no matter how long,
 and he/she polishes it by the experience encountered thereon
 and *contributes to it* by his interests on that horizontal
 line as long as he is content to stay there. It may be a
 lifetime. Mankind polishes a *cul-de-sac*. If he is
 progressive, he will, before death, move upward to another
 level of *cul-de-sacs*, lingering for a while, and may even
 go several steps upward before the lifetime is finished.
 Hopefully, in the next incarnation, the less progressive will
 incarnate at the next level up, and commence to polish that
 *cul-de-sac*. In the TS, Adyarian or separated varieties, one
 sees a lot of one level *cul-de-sac* polishers. Accepting a
 change can mean going to another level, -- upwards.

 	Truth is a many faceted gem, and too many only see the
 one facet or two that reflects the light from where they are
 standing, rather than seeing the whole gem. I used to think
 that this was my original thought, until I saw that HPB had
 also said it. Since there are very many ways to look at
 something, (I speak of ideas here) one wonders why the
 followers of HPB only, pay no attention to her good advice
 and revelations, such as the one just quoted here, instead of
 selectively taking something here and there, as might suit
 their predilections. As I said before, "she was a grand lady,
 with so many revelations for our development ... her greatest
 advocates are her greatest distorters." I can visualize her,
 if she were here to deal with these distorters, calling them
 the "Flapdoodlers" and their religion the Flapdoodle Sect.
 ("Flapdoodle" was one of her favourite words, when not using
 direct and deserved profanity, and the word is in the
 dictionary).

 	If it looks and acts like a religion, it probably is,
 even if its participants deny it. As with the ultra
 conservatism of most of the Canadian TS, when something is
 (self) regarded as correct, it is proudly boasted of, but if
 someone suggests it could be pejorative, the participants
 deny doing any such thing. The denial lie, predictable as it
 is ubiquitous.

 	When in my teens, I started a lifetime interest in
 psychology. As I could not then psychoanalyze people on a
 couch, I would then use a substitute method, at first for the
 purposes of proving if psychology was true. If I noted
 something interesting, I would proceed to ask certain
 questions, or steer the conversation a certain way to see if
 what psychology would predict for this situation would hold
 true. It always did. Then when I saw the interesting field of
 esoteric psychology, I jumped into that too. I used the same
 technique to see if it was valid. It has been thus far. The
 religionists and ultra orthodox of the TS members have been a
 great help in proving parts of what has been given out about
 the Rays, the 6th Ray in particular.

 	My contention is that Mme Blavatsky was quite broad
 minded and would never condone the narrow minded line that
 her TS has become. I could say, has degenerated to. This
 happened to Christianity, for it is not based on the
 teachings of the Christ as found in that religion's favourite
 book, the Bible, neither Roman Catholic or Protestant
 versions of christianity, and certainly not on that earlier
 form of Christianity, Gnosticism. I think HPB hoped that it
 would not go that way, but foresaw it, hence her wail, as
 quoted at the beginning of this essay. These words of mine
 will have no effect on the religionists in the TS if they are
 over 30 or perhaps 40. Man has a concrete mind, and the
 concrete sets at about age 20. Thereafter it takes hammer and
 chisel to change any set ideas. Concrete is a good example of
 crystallization, for in the version of concrete that is used
 in building, bridges and roads, etc., when concrete sets, it
 forms crystals as it turns to man-made stone. The changing of
 an organization by crystallization is not evolution. Perhaps
 some of our younger members will be able to see the need for
 a broad attitude, as stated by the HPB quote used earlier in
 this article. A past General Secretary of Canada, and a
 former editor of this magazine stated in an essay "Do not
 take any graven images of the mind", as an interpretation of
 the Biblical stricture against graven images in the Ten
 Commandments. The problem with human nature, speaking of the
 Ten Commandments, (written in stone) is that humans, if they
 do a thing twice, think that they have to do it unchangingly
 that way ever after, hence the saying, "Written in Stone".
 Some philosophers are more generous than I and say; "If a
 human does a thing three times, etc..."

 	Rigidness is symptomatic of a religion. In some places we
 see the term "source theosophy" used to show or define the
 correct and desirable form. What can this mean? One might
 think that it could be the first-use type of theosophy, as
 found, used and defined by Ammonius Saccas at the beginning
 of the Christian era, or mayhap its earlier use, as the word
 has been traced to about 200 BC and is claimed to have been
 used by St. Paul. This is not what the users of "source
 theosophy" mean. They mean Blavatskyian theosophy, however
 that might be described or defined. I doubt that HPB would
 like the use of the term in that way. In defining "source
 theosophy" one can see a problem in determining just who is
 entitled to make the definition. There are those who will
 (and do) define it, an arbitrary assumption of the right to
 define it. Does not this also happen, and be a prominent
 trait, in a religion? The Pope defines, and is infallible,
 yet other Christian groups offer other definitions for the
 same thing, and so the fights go on forever. The TS now has
 all the cute faults of a religion, and of which (religion)
 HPB had many things to find fault with.

 	The TS has been breaking apart, and this started with
 Judge, but I do not blame him for it, rather Besant, and
 mention it only to set a date. The Canadian group has been
 breaking apart since 1924, and with its boasted ultra
 conservatism, (but worded otherwise) it should be seen as
 inevitable. The blame will be placed elsewhere, including on
 me; the blame will be seen everywhere except where it is,
 which is in the ultra conservatism, and misplaced
 interpretation on certain chosen writers only, whether HPB or
 the Besantine outlook. Some groups in the TS place little
 emphasis on HPB, Besantine theosophy being preferred, as
 being easier. Countess Wachtmeister said that HPB while
 writing the *Secret Doctrine* said to her that someone in the
 20th century would write the psychological key to the *Secret
 Doctrine*. I suggest that this has been done, in Cosmic Fire
 by Alice Bailey. That is an opinion. But if it did not
 happen, was HPB or Countess Wachtmeister a liar? Not likely
 in either case. The narrow will never agree with me, as it
 goes counter to the religion aspect of theosophy today,
 suggesting a threat to consolidated beliefs in the oneness
 and onlyness (a word?) of the chosen brand of theosophic
 religion, Blavatskyism, Besantine, or even Judgeian.

 	The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "cult" as: a
 system of religious worship, devotion or homage to person or
 thing. What was once intended for concern with the occult is
 now tending to a cult.

 	In fear of change, someone remarked at a TS Annual
 Meeting, and was overheard, "... that the TS is being taken
 over by Roozycrewshuns! (sic) (Rosicrucians). There are a few
 members who are also Rosicrucians. I can see nothing wrong
 with this. On the contrary, a good sign. Are not Rosicrucians
 (an appellation but a few hundred years old) from a very
 ancient line of esotericists from which modern day Theosophy
 derives? Why did these alarmed members not worry when the TS
 was run by a Zen Buddhist? Or is it because HPB and Olcott
 became Buddhists, not necessarily Zen? I can visualize some
 Rosicrucians expressing fear "... that some of our members
 are being perverted over to Theosophy, and thus the
 Theosophists are going to take us over!" Where is the broad
 mindedness of HPB in Theosophists today? No wonder "... the
 Masters left the TS", (see D. Buxey, C.T. Mar. - Apr. 1996).

 	Alice Bailey asked in an early 1920's lecture: "Why
 should we (the TS) go back to Blavatsky when she is so far
 ahead of us?" "Let us go *forward* to Blavatsky: our
 Blavatskyites ("source theosophists") have gone back(wards)
 to her. Only by a broad study of all and any sources can we
 have any hope of finding the meanings hidden in the *Secret
 Doctrine*, so far as HPB gave out part of the secret
 doctrine, the rest we will have to find out for ourselves, as
 the great Plan intends we shall.


 -----------------------***---------------------
 To be published in The Canadian Theosophist, July-Aug 1996.

 Mailing address of Canadian Theosophist:
 R.R. No. 3, Burk's Falls
 Ontario P0A 1C0

From cdgert@rci.ripco.com Mon Jun 24 06:46:30 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:46:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude)
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <960624013959_337538361@emout17.mail.aol.com> from "Drpsionic@aol.com" at Jun 24, 96 01:52:15 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 119

Hi Uncle Chuckie....
Are you really a top?
A top what???
Should I buy you a tophat?
(ducking)
Gertrude the Churchmouse
From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 08:00:32 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:00:32 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624080032.006ef590@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 11:51 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>I suppose I'd have to say it depends on what truth your actually talking
>about.  If it's regarding the All, then I suppose I'd have to say that the
>only way to know it is to absolutely not know it.  But there are smaller
>truths to know and talk about.  The astral body for instance, I believe this
>to be an absolute truth- it is there.

Oh well, I call it the 'Virtual Reality Intelligence" but I agree, it exists.
>
>Personally, as far as religion goes, I think it's there to just keep people
>on track (or at least try).

If you'll change that to "control" people for the amusement and profit of
the religion, I'd agree.
>

>As stated earlier, "prostrating" oneself at the feet of a master is not
>worship, it's a show of respect.  The Japanese have quite a few customs
>which westerners don't even consider.  Though when in a business (or
>personal for that matter) situation with these people, their customs are
>respected.  It's simply a show of respect.

Chris: You have allowed yourself to get out of temporal and societal
context. Business men today, comply to some degree with Japanese Customs
that are strange to Westerners, not so much out of "respect" but in response
to the profit motive. But in the Edwardian Era, an Englishman NEVER
prostrated themselves out of respect to anyone. Leadbeater was one of the
most egregious snobs I ever encountered (in print) and his "prostrations"
are either imaginary or hallucinatory.
>
>>>
>
>
>Personally, my core set consists of the works of AE Powell and The Secret
>Doctrine.  If someone were to ask me about Theosophy, I'd tell them to look
>at The Key to Theosophy.  If someone wanted to know the mechanics of
>Theosophy's views of reality, I'd tell them to look at either AE Powell's
>works, or The Secret Doctrine (or abridgement if just curious).  Those are
>the ones I started on, and I greatly respect them.  They've helped me fill
>in the gaps on various other studies I've done over the years.

A.E> Powell would have been "voiceless" were it not for CWL. His books are
re-phrasing of Leadbeater's and nothing more. As to Blavatsky, why don't you
try "Isis" it's the only major book with her name on it that is undeniably
her own work, and that only if you read the 1878 facsimile edition.
>
>>

>Your correct, and I admit, I slack off on it at times.  more precise>
>
It really does make communication easier.
>>>>

>>>
>>>I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
>>>hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
>>>has to be that "good thought."
>>
>>Ah, but what is meant by the term "good thought"? How many definitions of
>>that term are there?
>
>Whatever it was you meant by the term "good action" ;-)

Oh that's really simple, a "good action" is anything that actually helps
somebody in a measurable and physical sense.
>

>If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
>trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
>dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb
too."

Chris: I have to say the comment you just made presents me with the idea
that you have a peculiar sense of both values and priorities. How can a
reasonably intelligent person equate child molestation with absent
mindedness. Now as I knew Albert Einstein from the time I was a small boy
until his death, and as I played chess with him, and played violin duets
with him, and occasionally stayed in his house in Princeton, I will tell you
that he was perfectly capable of "opening a door by himself". Those legends
are an ugly part of American's preoccupation with devaluing the
super-intelligent.
>
>>spiritual guide? Is a woman who is (as you put it) "crazy" enough to
>
>I never said that.  I said that the people who prostrated themselves
>demonstrated "crazy" behavior.  If your going to be so picky on what words I
>use and how I use them, then take them for how I use them.  Don't start
>assuming I meant more than I said :-)

Chris: If by "demonstrating crazy behaviour" you meant something other than
crazy, you should have said something other than "crazy". I simply assume
you mean what you say.
>
>>encourage people to prostrate themselves to her, to be considered a reliable
>>guide. Is a person whose sense of values is so skewed as to allow them to
>>closely associate themselves with people like the Nazis, to be trusted as a
>>teacher or guide? What all this does is throw into question not only the
>>validity of their work but the veracity of their work. I am somewhat
>
>Actually I usually don't tend to research the history of the writers of the
>books I read before (or even after, usually) I read them.  I read them and
>take them for what they are, or at least how I interpret them.  I don't try
>to put them in their historical context to understand what the writer was
>talking about at that time.  I try to make sense of it for my time.  I do
>this at least for occult books anyway.

Chris: That is a totally wrong thing to do, any book; occult or otherwise,
must be viewed not simply in the light of "what is said" but in light of
"who said it". Every book MUST be viewed in light of it's historical
context, simply because the writer was seeking in regard to that context.
This is especially true about so-called "Occult" books. This is ture because
99% of that type of book is unadulterated nonsense.
>
>>flabbergasted at your comment "linked to various people who could be
>>considered bad". Is that all you have to say about Adolf Hitler and company?
>
>I consider them to be bad people.  I'm sure the Nazi's didn't consider
>themselves to be bad.  How can I say that they were "absolutely" bad when
>it's impossible, as you say, to know the "absolute" truth one way or the
>other?  But, to be honest, isn't everything part of the All or the One?
>Isn't everything supposed to be both good and bad?  Two parts of a spiral,
>transforming good into bad and bad into good, yin and yang?  What we
>consider good now, could be considered bad later, and vice versa.  Maybe the
>act itself was bad, but what we learned from it good.

 The Nazis were "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
human society. That has nothing to do with"absolute reality" in any way.

Now as to your question: Yes there is only one unified field of energy and
it makes up the cosmos, and everything within that cosmos are nexii within
that unified field of energy. Good and bad have nothing to do with any
context outside of the physical, BUT the Nazis and their death camps were
part of the physical realities and there is the ONLY place where the
dualities of "good and bad" exist. Chris, if you had ever seen Auswitz and
Dachau and Treblinka as I did, then I am certain you wouldn't be playing
sophomoric little word games on the Nazis and their sympathizers and apologists.
>

>>
>>I think you will find that most people with legitimate scientific
>>credentials consider it nonsense too. I am not a scientist in any way, but
>>the scientists whom I do know, all agree with me.
>
>I'm sure I would find that to be the case.  That's how most scientists view
>the paranormal.  How do they feel about the soul or spirit?  The same way?
>Or do they give that the "exception"?

Chris: Your statement is a non-sequitur. "Occult Chemistry" is just one of
Leadbeater's little frauds.
>
>>
>
>
>I agree.  Quite a few different methods may be used to reach the
>"meditative" state.  I never implied I was talking about "militant"
>meditation or "formal" meditation.
>
>>>>Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
>>>>as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
>>>>it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative
>>>
>>>Again, a semantics issue.

Oh of course, but Chris: you have to understand that "how" you say something
is almost more important than what you are saying. Imprecision in language
implies imprecision in thoughts and in subjects like this that can be deadly.
>>
>>May I have your help in comprehending what you just said? Are you saying
>>that because it is a "semantics issue" it's irrelevant?
>>>
>>>I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
>>>message, how is Theosophy a process?
>>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>I'll insert my response before the commercial. < big grin>
>>
>
> I'm gonna disable that darn signature file.
>
>>Let me put this as simply and clearly as I can. Theosophy is a process
>>because it is an intellectual catalyst which motivates a person to seek an
>>understanding of abstractions concerning reality (truth), through study and
>>experimentation by way of the "Three Objects". It is a process because it is
>>an activity which a person must perform by and for themselves. It is a
>>process because another person's understanding is not your own. It is a
>>process because it's something which a person must DO, not learn about. Core
>>Theosophy  is, as I see it, a total avoidance of the process. As I see it,
>>"Core Theosophy" is a way people who don't want to go through the process
>>themselves, try to get someone else to do it for them. But, unfortunately
>>for them, that's not at all possible. It's a thing one must do totally on
>>one's own.
>>
>
>When someone asks you what Theosophy is...what do you tell them?  Why are
>there all these "Theosophical" books that talk about the "Astral" body or
>the "Solar Logos"?  Are they not part of Theosophy?
>
>Chris Allen
>
What do I tell people? I tell them that theosophy is a process through which
one seeks personal growth and understanding and an increase in knowledge and
experience through the pursuit of the "Three Objects" while keeping always
in mind the motto of the movement "There is NO religion higher than "truth"
(reality). I tell them to forget any "Theosophical Books written after about
1878. I tell them that all of the books written by Leadbeater and his
disciples are pseudo-theosophical mythology, and that while they're fun to
read, they are meaningless unless proven by personal experience of what they
say.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 08:11:56 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:11:56 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624081156.006d99cc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 12:11 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>How does reading "Core Doctrines" allow someone else to do their growing for
>them?  If it weren't for the "Core Doctrines" of mathematics I would think
>you'd have a problem doing simple mathematics.  I have the feeling you
>wouldn't have figured it out on your own   That's how each generation
>evolves, they learn from the one before them, many times through books.

Of course those words weren't directed to you, they were in a message to
someone else. If you chose to take them personally then it's strictly your
problem because they weren't directed to you. Now let's get one thing
straight. When I use the words "Core Doctrines" I am using them in the sense
that people like John Algeo do, and that refers to a body of unquestionable
doctrines that one must accept or be considered something other than a
Theosophist. What I am protesting is a body of Doctrines that are being
given the force of Dogma. As to figuring "simple mathematics" on my
own..wanna bet? I was reading when I was three.
>
>For someone who is ascending through the process of enlightenment so
>successfully, you seem to be stumbling a bit by making the sarcastic and
>snide comments to those who don't hold your point of view.  You seem to have
>a problem with reading what people write, that must be why you misread, or
>don't read, what I say and respond anway .

Sarcasm sometimes relieves one of the responsibility of being actively
hostile. As to you chris, no I respond to what you say, but I man NOT
respond to what you may have MEANT to say. That is why when your trying to
talk to me, absolute (there's that word again)precision in language is
required. I will respond to say, I refuse to attempt to ascertain what you
meant to say if the two things differ.
>
>At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>>How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
>>supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
>>Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.
>
>Don't be offended if I don't "prostrate" myself before you in the near
>future ;-)
>
>Chris
 Once again I'll insert myself before the commercial. I have to assume that
your last comment was intended to be humorous and I will accept it as such.
Otherwise, I really don't understand it's motivation or inspiration.

alexis dolgorukii
>/*********************************************************
>*                    Christopher Allen                   *
>*              Systems Integration Specialist            *
>* 2448 East 81st Street              coallen@tandata.com *
>* Suite 3600                      http://www.tandata.com *
>* Tulsa, OK  74137-4632             918.499.2801 Support *
>*                                                        *
>* Intelligent Logistics Solutions in OS/2 and Windows NT *
>*********************************************************/
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 08:17:25 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:17:25 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624081725.006bf1dc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

At 03:43 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Bjorn originally sent the message, which I assume you didn't see since your
>filtering his messages out.  When I replied to the message, I quoted his
>original message.  That's probably how you got it.
>
>Chris
>
>
>Chris:

That would be a plausible explanation if what I received had one word that
was yours on it, but it didn't. All it had was your return address.
Was your reply, then, no reply at all?

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 08:25:22 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:25:22 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624082522.006f5478@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 01:58 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Bjorn is WORSE that Pat Robertson.  Pat is merely a Xian, while Bjorn claims
>to be a Theosophist.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Aha! NOW I understand.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 08:29:10 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:29:10 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624082910.006e2a24@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: How many Theosophists?

At 02:11 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I said 13,000 members in India.  We need a better phone line.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>No we don't! I need YOUNGER EARS! But that makes it worse, far worse!
That's 33,000 members out of a world population of 5 1/2 billion! That's
utterly insignificant. More than 33,000 people fall dead on the streets in
India every night!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 08:31:25 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:31:25 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624083125.006dfdf0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

At 02:15 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Your forgot "a prating coxcomb."
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Chuck: You forget I'm Russian, we're not into insults, why use words when a
knout makes a stronger impression? It's so much easier to decapitate someone
than call them names.

alexis

From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 24 12:59:00 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 07:59:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Scholar searched for KFI (forwarded message) (fwd)
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Here is a message that may interest someone.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss

> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:03:54 +0200
> From: Dirk Lutzebaeck 
> Subject: Scholar searched for KFI (forwarded message)

Hello all,

for those who might be interested here is a message I got from the
Krishnamurti Foundation, India (KFI). Dr Srinivasan is looking for a
scholar there:


------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------

malini.srinivasan@scl.sprintrpg.sprint.com (Dr Prema Srinivasan):

- ------------------------------------------------------------

Hello:

I saw the well mainatined home page of K rersources that you maintain,
and I thought I could ask for some help.

As part of Krishnamurti Foundation, India--of which I am a trustee-I
am looking for a scholar to undertahe a comparitive study of K and
Mahayana Buddhism, to be onducted in India.

Some of the qualifications would be:

1. Phd/Post Graduate in Philosophy/religon
2. Interest in K
3. Age: 30-40s
4. Willing to re-locate to India for a year (in case he/she is not
currently in India)

Scope:
Produce a monog. on the subject in English, working with the KFI team.

Terms:

1. Reasoable Stipend
2. Boarding Provided
3. Location: Primarily in Varanasi, North India.


------- end -------

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 22 19:30:37 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:30:37 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960622175728.006b98fc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960622175728.006b98fc@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>I adamantly believe that "good works"
>are infinitely more valuable than
>"Good Thoughts".

Let's have both!  Do we need the good thought to do the good work, or is
"good works" built into us?  Chicken and egg ...

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From coallen@cris.com Mon Jun 24 14:06:19 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606241406.KAA21316@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Take insults to a higher level (to Alexis)

At 04:15 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 03:43 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>Bjorn originally sent the message, which I assume you didn't see since your
>>filtering his messages out.  When I replied to the message, I quoted his
>>original message.  That's probably how you got it.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>Chris:
>
>That would be a plausible explanation if what I received had one word that
>was yours on it, but it didn't. All it had was your return address.
>Was your reply, then, no reply at all?
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>

If you look at the end of the message you'll see I jokingly laughed about
it.  Thoses were my words :)

Chris

From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Mon Jun 24 14:23:53 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 10:23:53 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606241423.KAA18896@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Richard and Gurdjieff

The wisdom of Richard Ihle regarding the current situation of
the TSA calls to mind some wisdom of G. I. Gurdjieff about
spiritual organizations' inevitable entropy.  If we want to
know why there is so much subtle shifting from internally
accessible theosophy to scriptural Theosophy, from being a
nucleus of human brotherhood to being an outpost of the
Masters, I think G. has some interesting insights.

A, B, and C influences are the most relevant theme from his
writings to this situation.  He says that spiritual influences
from the Conscious Circle of Humanity, those who are in the
vanguard of spiritual evolution, start out as "C" influences.
Meaning that there is encoded in them the very taste or essence
of the enlightened consciousness from which these influences
flow.  Let us say, then, that HPB was a transmitter of these
influences from relatively enlightened humans.  But Gurdjieff
also describes A influences-- those of ordinary mundane life,
repetitive, devoid of vision, wanting only the security of
predictability and control.  Whenever C influences are
transmitted from any teacher or group of teachers, they
immediately start to interact with the A influences in the
environment.  Generation after generation, the A influences
grow stronger and the C influences grow weaker.  So there is
less and less immediate access to theosophia, gnosis,
illumination, what have you-- and more and more reliance on
formulations, authorities, codes of behavior, scriptures, etc.
The combination of C and A influences produces B influences.
These have traces of the original inspiration still present,
but with a heavy admixture of the visionless, dull, repetitive
reality of the unenlightened mind.  Religions in general are B
influences.  Theosophy IS a religion, no matter how strongly
some Theosophists deny it; theosophy is not, but is indeed the
essence from which religion (d)evolves.  HPB herself said that
every previous such effort had degenerated, and warned of the
likelihood of the same results with her own effort.

So where are the newer C influences?  I think you all know
where I find them, so no need to beat that drum here.
From coallen@cris.com Mon Jun 24 14:49:53 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:49:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606241449.KAA02256@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 04:02 AM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>>Personally, as far as religion goes, I think it's there to just keep people
>>on track (or at least try).
>
>If you'll change that to "control" people for the amusement and profit of
>the religion, I'd agree.
>>

Unfortunately many times over the ages what was meant to be good (or started
out that way) is taken to militant extremes.  I'd have to agree with you to
some degree.

>>As stated earlier, "prostrating" oneself at the feet of a master is not
>>worship, it's a show of respect.  The Japanese have quite a few customs
>>which westerners don't even consider.  Though when in a business (or
>>personal for that matter) situation with these people, their customs are
>>respected.  It's simply a show of respect.
>
>Chris: You have allowed yourself to get out of temporal and societal
>context. Business men today, comply to some degree with Japanese Customs
>that are strange to Westerners, not so much out of "respect" but in response
>to the profit motive. But in the Edwardian Era, an Englishman NEVER
>prostrated themselves out of respect to anyone. Leadbeater was one of the
>most egregious snobs I ever encountered (in print) and his "prostrations"
>are either imaginary or hallucinatory.
>>

I have to disagree.  I think he did do it out of respect.  AP Sinnett was
just as respectful as Leadbeater in his writing.  Do you believe that he
also worshipped the Masters?

>>
>>Personally, my core set consists of the works of AE Powell and The Secret
>>Doctrine.  If someone were to ask me about Theosophy, I'd tell them to look
>>at The Key to Theosophy.  If someone wanted to know the mechanics of
>>Theosophy's views of reality, I'd tell them to look at either AE Powell's
>>works, or The Secret Doctrine (or abridgement if just curious).  Those are
>>the ones I started on, and I greatly respect them.  They've helped me fill
>>in the gaps on various other studies I've done over the years.
>
>A.E> Powell would have been "voiceless" were it not for CWL. His books are
>re-phrasing of Leadbeater's and nothing more. As to Blavatsky, why don't you
>try "Isis" it's the only major book with her name on it that is undeniably
>her own work, and that only if you read the 1878 facsimile edition.
>>

I'm sorry, but your wrong.  Look at the first few pages of any of Powell's
works.  It lists the people he compiled from.  They include Leadbeater,
Besant, Wood, Van der Leeuw, Long, Wedgewood, and others.  They were a
compilation of these people's writings, but he's compiled the literature on
the subjects in an intelligible way.  As far as Isis, I've read both volumes
of it.  I like to recommend SD over Isis for the mechanics of Theosophy.

>
>>Your correct, and I admit, I slack off on it at times.  >more precise>
>>
>It really does make communication easier.
>>>>>

Point taken.

>>>>
>>>>I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
>>>>hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
>>>>has to be that "good thought."
>>>
>>>Ah, but what is meant by the term "good thought"? How many definitions of
>>>that term are there?
>>
>>Whatever it was you meant by the term "good action" ;-)
>
>Oh that's really simple, a "good action" is anything that actually helps
>somebody in a measurable and physical sense.
>>

Ok, then take your definition of this "good action" and that's what I meant
by "good thought".  All I was implying was that there's thought before
action.  In order to get to your "good action" there has to be "good
thought".  It doesn't matter what my definition of it is because it's only
relevant in the context of what you meant.  Meditation often times leads to
good action.

>
>>If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
>>trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
>>dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb
>too."
>
>Chris: I have to say the comment you just made presents me with the idea
>that you have a peculiar sense of both values and priorities. How can a
>reasonably intelligent person equate child molestation with absent
>mindedness. Now as I knew Albert Einstein from the time I was a small boy
>until his death, and as I played chess with him, and played violin duets
>with him, and occasionally stayed in his house in Princeton, I will tell you
>that he was perfectly capable of "opening a door by himself". Those legends
>are an ugly part of American's preoccupation with devaluing the
>super-intelligent.
>>

Once again you miss the point.

>>>spiritual guide? Is a woman who is (as you put it) "crazy" enough to
>>
>>I never said that.  I said that the people who prostrated themselves
>>demonstrated "crazy" behavior.  If your going to be so picky on what words I
>>use and how I use them, then take them for how I use them.  Don't start
>>assuming I meant more than I said :-)
>
>Chris: If by "demonstrating crazy behaviour" you meant something other than
>crazy, you should have said something other than "crazy". I simply assume
>you mean what you say.
>>

Your either not reading what I'm saying or just enjoy twisting words ;-)  I
never said Besant demonstrated "crazy" behaviour.  I said the people
"prostrating" themselves in front of her were.  Somehow you took it to mean
that I thought Besant was acting "crazy".  This is an incorrect assumption
on your part.

>>
>>Actually I usually don't tend to research the history of the writers of the
>>books I read before (or even after, usually) I read them.  I read them and
>>take them for what they are, or at least how I interpret them.  I don't try
>>to put them in their historical context to understand what the writer was
>>talking about at that time.  I try to make sense of it for my time.  I do
>>this at least for occult books anyway.
>
>Chris: That is a totally wrong thing to do, any book; occult or otherwise,
>must be viewed not simply in the light of "what is said" but in light of
>"who said it". Every book MUST be viewed in light of it's historical
>context, simply because the writer was seeking in regard to that context.
>This is especially true about so-called "Occult" books. This is ture because
>99% of that type of book is unadulterated nonsense.
>>

I believe that's true if you are trying to figure out what that writer was
saying at that time.  I don't believe that's the case if your souly seeking
information for the benefit of yourself in your current time.  If something
works for you, use it.  This is the problem your having with understanding
how people use information as a tool to their own spiritual development.

>>>flabbergasted at your comment "linked to various people who could be
>>>considered bad". Is that all you have to say about Adolf Hitler and company?
>>
>>I consider them to be bad people.  I'm sure the Nazi's didn't consider
>>themselves to be bad.  How can I say that they were "absolutely" bad when
>>it's impossible, as you say, to know the "absolute" truth one way or the
>>other?  But, to be honest, isn't everything part of the All or the One?
>>Isn't everything supposed to be both good and bad?  Two parts of a spiral,
>>transforming good into bad and bad into good, yin and yang?  What we
>>consider good now, could be considered bad later, and vice versa.  Maybe the
>>act itself was bad, but what we learned from it good.
>
> The Nazis were "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
>human society. That has nothing to do with"absolute reality" in any way.
>

If you stand outside the circle, you can see both sides as equally
important.  If you stand inside one side or the other all you see is how the
other side is not your own, and because of that, it's bad.  As far as the
Nazi's being "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
society, again, it depends from whose side you look.  If we look from our
side, yes, they were bad.  If we look from the "bad" guy's side, they were
good.  All that time you spent with Einstein- didn't you ever pick up on his
theory of relativity?

>Now as to your question: Yes there is only one unified field of energy and
>it makes up the cosmos, and everything within that cosmos are nexii within
>that unified field of energy. Good and bad have nothing to do with any
>context outside of the physical, BUT the Nazis and their death camps were
>part of the physical realities and there is the ONLY place where the
>dualities of "good and bad" exist. Chris, if you had ever seen Auswitz and
>Dachau and Treblinka as I did, then I am certain you wouldn't be playing
>sophomoric little word games on the Nazis and their sympathizers and
apologists.
>>
>

I think it would help if you tried to understand my point without your
prejudiced attitude.  I understand you saw the horrors that the Nazi's
committed, but try to get past that and listen to what I'm saying.  In order
to call the Nazi's "absolutely" bad, there can be no other side to look
from.  And if there was no other side to look from, there'd be no good and
bad.  It's interchangeable and relative, not absolute.  They can be
absolutely bad in your and mine opinion, but in someone else's (another
baddie for instance), they're not.  That's all I'm trying to get across.

As far as my sophomoric little word games, your the one whose insisted on my
being exact with what I say.  In order for that to happen, we both have to
agree on the definitions of the words we use.

>>>
>>>I think you will find that most people with legitimate scientific
>>>credentials consider it nonsense too. I am not a scientist in any way, but
>>>the scientists whom I do know, all agree with me.
>>
>>I'm sure I would find that to be the case.  That's how most scientists view
>>the paranormal.  How do they feel about the soul or spirit?  The same way?
>>Or do they give that the "exception"?
>
>Chris: Your statement is a non-sequitur. "Occult Chemistry" is just one of
>Leadbeater's little frauds.
>>

Of all people to say I'm being non-sequitur.  I disagree, your dismissing
the validity of Occult Chemistry because it is based on clairvoyance, a
paranormal activity.  How is my statement non-sequitur?

>>
>>>Let me put this as simply and clearly as I can. Theosophy is a process
>>>because it is an intellectual catalyst which motivates a person to seek an
>>>understanding of abstractions concerning reality (truth), through study and
>>>experimentation by way of the "Three Objects". It is a process because it is
>>>an activity which a person must perform by and for themselves. It is a
>>>process because another person's understanding is not your own. It is a
>>>process because it's something which a person must DO, not learn about. Core
>>>Theosophy  is, as I see it, a total avoidance of the process. As I see it,
>>>"Core Theosophy" is a way people who don't want to go through the process
>>>themselves, try to get someone else to do it for them. But, unfortunately
>>>for them, that's not at all possible. It's a thing one must do totally on
>>>one's own.
>>>

Why isn't it possible for people to build on other people's work?  Why can't
the "process" start on various levels.  If everyone started at the same
place, we would still be back in the stone age.  People go through the
process all the time, it just doesn't always start at the same place.  If I
choose to read the early works of Theosophists and start my process from
where they left off, does it make my process invalid, or non-Theosophical?

>>
>>When someone asks you what Theosophy is...what do you tell them?  Why are
>>there all these "Theosophical" books that talk about the "Astral" body or
>>the "Solar Logos"?  Are they not part of Theosophy?
>>
>>Chris Allen
>>
>What do I tell people? I tell them that theosophy is a process through which
>one seeks personal growth and understanding and an increase in knowledge and
>experience through the pursuit of the "Three Objects" while keeping always
>in mind the motto of the movement "There is NO religion higher than "truth"

I agree completely.

>(reality). I tell them to forget any "Theosophical Books written after about
>1878. I tell them that all of the books written by Leadbeater and his
>disciples are pseudo-theosophical mythology, and that while they're fun to
>read, they are meaningless unless proven by personal experience of what they
>say.
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>>

Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?

Chris Allen

(Notice, no advertisement! :)

From coallen@cris.com Mon Jun 24 15:41:58 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:41:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606241541.LAA15170@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 04:09 AM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>At 12:11 PM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>How does reading "Core Doctrines" allow someone else to do their growing for
>>them?  If it weren't for the "Core Doctrines" of mathematics I would think
>>you'd have a problem doing simple mathematics.  I have the feeling you
>>wouldn't have figured it out on your own   That's how each generation
>>evolves, they learn from the one before them, many times through books.
>
>Of course those words weren't directed to you, they were in a message to
>someone else. If you chose to take them personally then it's strictly your
>problem because they weren't directed to you. Now let's get one thing
>straight. When I use the words "Core Doctrines" I am using them in the sense
>that people like John Algeo do, and that refers to a body of unquestionable
>doctrines that one must accept or be considered something other than a
>Theosophist. What I am protesting is a body of Doctrines that are being
>given the force of Dogma. As to figuring "simple mathematics" on my
>own..wanna bet? I was reading when I was three.
>>

There was no indication as to who your words were directed at.  I didn't
take them personally, though I did chose to respond to them.  They do have
the force of dogma.  Go to any bookstore and if they have a Theosophy
section (many occult bookstores do) Blavatsky, Leadbeater, and Besant are
there.  In their books you see, "There is no religion higher than truth."
You open up the books and see all kinds of information written on the
various bodies of man, Karma, reincarnation, the Devachan plane, etc, etc.
The reader assumes that that's the truth that Theosophists are talking about.

As far as learning mathematics on your own, that's fine.  But that wasn't
exactly my point.  I meant that we as people try to build on what previous
generations have taught.  In order to do that, we first learn what it is
they discovered.  If mathematics is an example that doesn't relate to you,
there are many others to chose from to serve my example.  What are society
is knowledgable about didn't develop in one generation.  There were many
generations of genius who developed what we take for granted today.  That
was my point.

>>For someone who is ascending through the process of enlightenment so
>>successfully, you seem to be stumbling a bit by making the sarcastic and
>>snide comments to those who don't hold your point of view.  You seem to have
>>a problem with reading what people write, that must be why you misread, or
>>don't read, what I say and respond anway .
>
>Sarcasm sometimes relieves one of the responsibility of being actively
>hostile. As to you chris, no I respond to what you say, but I man NOT
>respond to what you may have MEANT to say. That is why when your trying to
>talk to me, absolute (there's that word again)precision in language is
>required. I will respond to say, I refuse to attempt to ascertain what you
>meant to say if the two things differ.
>>

I'm sorry that you don't take the time to try and understand what I was
saying.  There are other people who have valid and interesting opinions that
are not your own.  Sometime you might want to try understanding them.  If
you don't understand the first time around, most people will work with you
until you do understand what the original intent was.  Words are not the end
all to understanding.  I'm sure you've discovered this being the historical
theosophist you are.  As you've told me, the words aren't the only important
aspect, the context in which they were written is also important.

>>At 01:55 PM 6/22/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>>>How do YOU explain the fact that during the "twenties" adult,
>>>supposedly intelligent Europeans prostrated themselves before both Annie
>>>Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti. If that isn't worship I don't know what is.
>>
>>Don't be offended if I don't "prostrate" myself before you in the near
>>future ;-)
>>
>>Chris
> Once again I'll insert myself before the commercial. I have to assume that
>your last comment was intended to be humorous and I will accept it as such.
>Otherwise, I really don't understand it's motivation or inspiration.
>
>alexis dolgorukii

It was meant to be humorious :)

Sincerely,
Chris Allen

From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Mon Jun 24 15:52:27 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 11:52:27 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606241552.LAA10887@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Intelligence and National Security/TMR

In general, it seems inadvisable to post reviews of one's own
work, and I refrained from sharing a rave from The Skeptic, on
the assumption that it would only stir up "the opposing forces"
:)  But this one is so interesting and informative that I'm
passing it along in hopes that some readers may find it
worthwhile.  I will also forward it to Jim Santucci, since it
points to a documentary find that would be a good thing for TH
to publish.  My comments are in brackets.  The journal is
devoted entirely to the history of intelligence, espionage,
etc. and is very scholarly in tone, published in the UK.  The
reviewer has published on British Indian history.

-----
Any scholar who speaks of the political influence of secret
societies runs the risk of seeming a fool, of addressing
matters best left to *The Illuminatus Trilogy*, *Foucault's
Pendulum*, or *None Dare Call it Treason*.  Yet secret
societies demonstrable have shaped the history of many modern
states, while belief in this idea has marked a powerful
subterranean current in western thought, most recently
surfacing in The Reverend Pat Robertson's *The New World
Order*.  These ideas about the power of secrecy have affected
popular views of intelligence services and sometimes even these
services themselves.  There are, for example, similarities
between the conspiracy theories preached by Mrs Nesta Webster
in the early 1920s and ideas put forward by the contemporary
SIS [Alan, what's that?  Some British govt. agency?]  Thus,
historians of intelligence have something to learn from studies
of secret societies and something to say about them.

This certainly is true of the Theosophical Society. [Not a
secret society, but a society with a lot of secrets.]  Its
founder, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, is a notorious figure, to
her followers, a saint, to others, a fraud.  She is an
intellectual fount for the `New Age' movement, a favourite
target for conspiracy theorists on the right, and had
connections with Tsarist intelligence services which remain
murky even today.  The latest study of her career, *The Masters
Revealed*, addressed many issues related to the history of
intelligence.  Unfortunately, this book is difficult to read,
let alone review. [If you think this one is hard to read, you
should have seen its predecessor.]  It consists of 32 pocket
biographies of individuals whom K. Paul Johnson links to
Blavatsky.  Each account advances piecemeal a complec argument
about Blavatsky's career.  Johnson admires her doctrines but
denies her claims that they were dictated by a secret society
of spiritually advanced `Masters'.  He argues that Blavatsky
frequently lied about events while her ideas were her own
synthesis of various European and Asian esoteric traditions.
[Learned from authentic adepts in these traditions].  He
further claims that Blavatsky was a political figure no less
than a religious one, like other revolutionaries who worked
through secret societies, such as Giuseppe Mazzini; above all,
that her `Masters' were real figures, ranging from Mahajara
Ranjit [Ranbir] Singh of Kashmir to Jamal ad-Din-al-Afghani,
many, like her, involved in a secret struggle against British
rule in India and Egypt.  For a few years during the 1880s,
Johnson argues, the Theosophist movement was a nexus for
attempts to subvert British rule by Indian and Egyptian
dissidents, aided by powerful unofficial figures in Russia and
France.  Only with the failure of this effort did Theosophy
become a body with purely mystical concerns, even though its
exponents often remained significant opponents of British
imperialis

Given its complexity, only a review expert in the history of
Theosophy, and in anti-colonial movements throughout the Middle
East and India, and in the plots of various Indian, French and
Russian individuals in the middle 1880s, and in British actions
against them, could judge this book fully. [I think this means
that no one on earth, including the author, is qualified to
judge the book fully-- sounds true enough.]  Nor does the
difficulty end with this tall order.  Johnson's method consists
of comparing the well documented Theosophist side of the
equation with standard secondary sources on the political
aspects, backed by some original material from European and
Indian archives, including previously unused British official
records about Madame Blavatsky. [Fair enough, except that some
of the Theosophical material I dug up was pretty obscure, and
that the standard secondary sources led to primary ones for the
major figures.]  In particular, he attempts to graft the
history of the Theosophist movement (as he has reconstructed
it) onto well established material regarding (a) the conspiracy
of the 1880s by Dalip Singh, the claimant of the Sikh kingdom
of Lahore, against the British Empire and (b) Ranjit [Ranbir]
Singh's contacts with the Tsarist government during the 1870s
and his relations with Jemal ad-Din when the latter was a
figure of note in Afghan politics during the 1860s.  At its
worst, this method falls victim to the problem of `garbage in,
garbage out': thus Johnson's claims about Blavatsky's links to
Mazzini or his argument that the Russian spy Pachino was Jamal
ad-Din in disguise. [SAY WHAT?!?  I make no such argument, and
wouldn't, but just point out some similarities between the two
men.  As for the Mazzini stuff, a non-Theosophist scholar might
find HPB's references unconvincing, but when Sotheran, Olcott,
and Rawson all talk about him the same way, I don't think
`garbage in, garbage out' is quite fair.]  He also mistakes the
statement of Egyptian conspirators and British spies in 1888
that Turkey had agreed to support an attack on the British
Empire as proof that The Porte really had decided to do so.
[Guilty as charged.]  Nor do ample official sources support
Johnson's argument that around 1885 [February 1887] Blavatsky
betrayed to British authorities a French plot against India. [I
don't argue, but reproduce a letter in which she does just
that, making it clear that there is no documentary evidence that Sinnett
passed on the warning to the authorities.]  Many other of his
suggestions are questionable and they all must be treated with
caution.  [Agreed, but that is made clear in the text.]  Yet
still there is something here, especially in the links which
Johnson tries to establish between Blavatsky and many Europeans
and Indians involved in Dalip Singh's conspiracy, especially
his two principal allies, the Sikh leader, Thakur [Thakar]
Singh, and the Russian publicist Miklail [Mikhail] Katkov.  One
can fairly conclude that more remains to be learned about these
issues and perhaps others. [Hooray!  What better group of
readers to be told this than experts in the reviewer's
specialty?]

Some of this learning can be acquired from British documents
which Johnson did not examine.  These indicate that during the
first part of Madame Blavatsky's stay in India between 1879 and
1885, British authorities did regard her as a potential
security threat and did monitor her movements-- not
surprisingly, since she was a Russian woman contacting
precisely those religious/political leaders who were regarded
as posing the greatest possible danger to British rule.  [All
that is made clear in documents I do reproduce.]  At
this point, British authorities in India possessed no
specialist security service: local officials instead monitored
subversion on an ad hoc basis and through amateur means.
Hence, each Presidency monitored Blavatsky (and her American
associate, Colonel Olcott) through the most obvious of
methods.  As the Viceroy, Lord Lytton, complained, local police
forces `have caused the couple to be everywhere publicly
followed about by a mounted sowar and a European police
officer.  The Yankee colonel, naturally irate, has through his
counsel [sic] in Bombay, demanded an explanation for this
`intolerable persecution'-- and received a formal apology for
these actions (E. 218/26, Earl Lytton papers, India Office
Records and Library, Lytton to Cranbrook, 25 May 1879).  In this
letter, Lytton also referred with fair
accuracy to Pachino's mission to India and to the secret
relations between Ranjit [Ranbir] Singh and Afghan and Russian
authorities.  All this would fit Johnson's case perfectly,
except for what followed. The Indian government almost
immediately lost any concern with Blavatsky, once the failure
of her efforst to link up with significant internal movements
became clear.  [Hmm-- what about TS role in the founding of the
Indian National Congress?-- more Olcott than HPB.]  At
precisely this point, British authorities learned much more
about Ranjit [Ranbir] Singh's relations of previous years with
Afghans and Russians and, so to handle the potential danger of
Dalip Singh's conspiracy with its various connections in India,
Egypt, France and Russia, mounted the first coordinated effort
in history by all the disparate intelligence services of the
British empire. [News to me, and exciting to know.]  They
penetrated and smashed the conspiracy, not surprisingly, given
its ramshackle nature-- this product of an Indian princeling, a
French countess, a Fenian emigre, a Russian newspaper editor
and Pan-Islamists in Cairo seems worth the pen of George
MacDonald Fraser, but still it worried grizzled heads in London
and Calcutta.  More significantly, these efforts finally led
the Indian government to put its internal security services in
India on a permanent basis, though the latter still remained
flimsy for another generation.  All this evidence indicates
that indeed secret socities did shape the development of modern
British intelligence, though in the manner of farce rather than
tragedy.

John Ferris
University of Calgary

[If my work places HPB on the radar screens of scholars of
British Indian political history, interesting discoveries may
result.  As a total amateur I am highly flattered to be deemed
worthy of review in such a journal despite the reviewer's
sometimes unflattering remarks and inexplicable errors of fact.]
From euser@euronet.nl Mon Jun 24 17:40:58 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:40:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606241740.TAA05990@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy


Alan>>Sometimes, Alexis, I suspect that the many things you don't believe in
>>make up a whole new religion all of their own!
>

>Seriously, Alexis is a true "believer", too, only that he likes to be
>contrarian in his beliefs. This seems to make him fell better about himself.
>
>Bjorn

Alexis>Slowly and reluctantly I am being forced to agree with Chuck. This
man IS an
idiot. Bjorn, in a recent posting, said that he and I live in different
universes. For this I am grateful. I would really dislike living in HIS
universe.

        And never will the twain meet?


Bjorn: Let me say something here: I know you don't particularly like
Alexis and I can understand why. But remarks such as you made above
will accomplish nothing but trigger the kind of response Alexis has
given. If you really want to "expose" Alexis, you would have to engage
in a real dialogue with Alexis. Now, *that's* a challenge!
*If* you know more on esoteric things than Alexis, then you would have the
opportunity to show it to him, by pointing out flaws in his reasoning,
filling in some gaps, etc.

Alexis: Why,o why do you have to react in such a way? Calling someone
an idiot is not exactly a sign of good manners, I'd say. Why don't you
challenge Bjorn to show his superior knowledge to you? Far more polite,
and MUCH more fun to do, I submit.


Martin

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 18:18:10 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:18:10 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624181810.006cdf88@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: digest mode as a default

At 02:27 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>hi -
>
>I think I will reset the theos-l list default mail mode to digest.
>
>if there are divergent comments .. let me know.
>
>peace -
>
>john e. m.
>
>p.s. it will not affect any of the current subscribers.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
>Theos-L etc. list-owner
>Member of Theosophical Society in America
>Member of Theosophy International
>[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
>[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>John:

Please remember, to some of us these are simply fancy typewriters. We can't
(or at least I can't) comment on your plans because I don't know what you're
talking about. Some of us have very limited computer literacy. i.e we
haven't been issued our pocket protectors yet 

What does "reset the theos-l list default mode to digest" mean? What will it
do? What will be different than now?

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 18:49:31 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:49:31 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624184931.006d64d8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 10:06 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960622175728.006b98fc@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>I adamantly believe that "good works"
>>are infinitely more valuable than
>>"Good Thoughts".
>
>Let's have both!  Do we need the good thought to do the good work, or is
>"good works" built into us?  Chicken and egg ...
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>alan: The problem I have with the term "good thoughts" is that they tend to
be so dreadfully nebulous. What exactly are "Good thoughts", are they the
mental equivalent of a Disney Movie? As to "positive thoughts" that might be
a little better, but who is to define positive? That's why I prefer action,
notice I don't say either "right action" or "good action" I just say action.
Which to me means going out and actively trying to relieve the pain and
suffering of others. It also means to go out and try to end oppression and
tyranny and injustice and prejudice. That's what I do, and let the "good
thoughts" sort of float around as they wish. Now if that kind of action is
the RESULT of a positive thought pattern, and it most likely is, then that's
fine. But it's the result of an insensible thought pattern and not sitting
down and STRIVING to "think good thoughts".
See what I mean?

alexei

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 18:59:53 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:59:53 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624185953.006c10e8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: filtering and forwarding

At 10:16 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>If you look at the end of the message you'll see I jokingly laughed about
>it.  Thoses were my words :)
>
>Chris
>
>
>O.K. by me. But I had purposefully filtered Mr. Roxendol. I had what seems
to me a valid reason to do so. That reason is that I have absolutely no
desire to communicate with him, on any subject, or for any reason. As Mr.
Roxendol so clearly put it, he and I live in entirely different universes,
and I am more than content that it should remain that way. I had made that
desire for no contact fairly clear, or so I believe, and so I wonder why it
is felt necessary to do an "end run" as it were. Are we not allowed to "pick
and choose" who we wish to communicate with on the internet? Because my
filter program has developed what I think are called "glitches", I have
taken it off line (Is that the proper expression? You obviously know lots
more about these damn machines than I do.) It had taken to filtering
everything and not just the three names on it's list (mine being one of
them). So what I am going to do until I can "fix" it, is simply delete my
own messages and the other two people's as well, unread. If you like, and
ask me to, I will gladly detail why I put Mr. Roxendol on that list.

alexis dolgorukii

From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Jun 24 18:39:59 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:39:59 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606241839.AA10380@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Re: Teaching theosophy in Lodges/Branches/ Study centers


Ramadoss writes:

>With the present procedure of putting new lodges on a
>provisional/probational mode until their activities are
>"evaluated" by the powers be to see if they are satisfied, what
>would happen if a group of members, all of them members at
>large, but meet regularly and carryon any kind of activity they
>want?

What is the criteria upon which this "evaluation" is made?

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 Mon Jun 24 18:42:22 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:42:22 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606241842.AA10587@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: re: how many theosophist?


>>Do we have an accurate head count as of a given (recent) date,
>>by any chance?

My most recent census for the Adyar TS is for December 1992.  The
worldwide total was 31,315 members and 1,101 Lodges.  This total
was taken after the Canadian Section expulsion.  I don't know the
totals for 1995, but I've heard that it has gone down since 1992.
The largest section in 1992 was India with 10,925 members.  The
US had 4,748 in 1992, but this has also gone down.  The growth
for the Adyar TS is in New Zealand and the So. American
Countries.  The other countries remain stable, go down or get
expelled.

TS Pasadena and ULT are problematical because membership
statistics are not published, nor is membership an issue in these
organizations as it is in the Adyar TS.  The ULT does not have a
membership, but an "associateship."  You sign a card and you are
on the mailing list for life.  But there are no dues or follow up
to see if everyone on the list is still interested.  But it is up
to the associates to send in change of address cards etc., so
their mailing list does have some meaning.  Technically, if you
count everyone that is still alive who signed an associateship
card as "members" and stayed in touch, then the "membership" may
be around 5,000.  If you count the number of people who actually
attend Lodges worldwide, my guess is that the "membership" my be
closer to 1,000.

The Pasadena TS is harder to join.  They still want sponsoring
members like in the days of HPB.  They have no apparent desire to
expand their membership at this time.  They also don't collect
dues nor do they publish their membership totals.  I would guess
(this is just a guess) that they have over a thousand members
worldwide.

So giving 30,000 for the Adyar TS, 5,000 to ULT, lets say 1500 to
Pasadena, you still have under 40,000 worldwide, but I believe
that there are at least a thousand times that many people (40
million) who would happily be a part of the TM if it wasn't so
pathological, small minded, or let us just say, limited by its
terrible karma.

On the other hand, we can critically look at that 40,000 and say
that it is over blown.  Of the 5,000 ULT'es perhaps only a 1,000
are active in Lodges.  Of the Adyar TS, with its 30,000 members,
probably their are only 6,000 active members.  I pick this number
based upon my experience that Lodges typically only have 20% of
their total membership to be really active.  When you consider
that half of the American membership is "at large" then world
wide truly active membership in the Adyar TS could be as low as
3,000.  It all depends upon how you want to play with the
numbers.


JHE
------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------

From alexei@slip.net Mon Jun 24 20:23:30 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:23:30 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960624202330.006e9818@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 10:59 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:

>>>
>
>Unfortunately many times over the ages what was meant to be good (or started
>out that way) is taken to militant extremes.  I'd have to agree with you to
>some degree.

I think, Chris, where we actually disagree on this subject is in the fact
that you are willing to give religion credit for it's original motivations
as you see them. While I do not! To me it's what they are now that matters
not what they were intended to be. Now, as you know I don't believe in the
reality of the M\"Mahatma Letters" but instead believe that HPB herself
produced and apported them. But, on the basis of them being HPB's thoughts,
let me quote to you from from letter 10 in the Mahatma Letters (first three
editions) it's alleged to be from "Master K.H.):

" Work out every cause of evil you can think of, trace it to its origin, and
you will have solved one-third of the problems of evil. The other two-thirds
are caused by religion. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of
the opportunity. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of
humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false
pretense of saving them."

So you see Chris, I am not alone in my views of religion HPB at least
supports me, or The Master K.H. does, as you choose.
>


>
>I have to disagree.  I think he did do it out of respect.  AP Sinnett was
>just as respectful as Leadbeater in his writing.  Do you believe that he
>also worshipped the Masters?

Until they disappointed Sinnett yes I do believe he came close to
worshipping them. As to Leadbeater, as all of his connections with them were
in the Astral Plane I don't think any of them are anything but
hallucinatory. It's that he encouraged others in this attitude that I
disapprove of. Prostration is not respectful, it is self-abasing, and
self-abasement is entirely negative. Let's get this totally straight: as far
as I see it based on a really in depth study of the matter, Charles Webster
Leadbeater was a pathological Liar, he was mentally unstable, and he was a
totally immoral man. That makes everything he said extremely suspect.
>
>>>

>
>
>I'm sorry, but your wrong.  Look at the first few pages of any of Powell's
>works.  It lists the people he compiled from.  They include Leadbeater,
>Besant, Wood, Van der Leeuw, Long, Wedgewood, and others.  They were a
>compilation of these people's writings, but he's compiled the literature on
>the subjects in an intelligible way.  As far as Isis, I've read both volumes
>of it.  I like to recommend SD over Isis for the mechanics of Theosophy.

Well, you just proved I am not wrong, everyone of the people you listed is a
"creature" of Lead beaters's. Oh I agree A.E. Powell is very readable, but
it's what he says that matters to me not how he says it. One other thing you
apparently haven't picked up from our communications. The so-called
"Mechanics of theosophy" are the part of theosophy I consider to be both
irrelevant and nonsense. To me, the "mechanics of theosophy" are entirely
fairy tales and useless in human life and development. That's the primary
difference between a "Process theosophist" and others, we, for the most
part, entirely reject the "mechanics of theosophy". For me, the S.D. is for
the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've told Martin Euser, once
you get past the motto and the three objects, it's almost ALL ridiculous
nonsense. My own personal question is beginning to be can the two "types of
theosophists", i.e. "process theosophists" and "orthodox Theosophists" ever
meaningfully relate on any level? Or is it time for " total separation"?
Reaction like Bjorn Roxendol's make me think that no rational relationship
is possible. Reactions like yours gives me hope. You and I are at what I
guess would be about 85% disgreement and yet our communications remain
friendly, that's a good sign
>
>>
>>>Your correct, and I admit, I slack off on it at times.  >>more precise>
>>>
>>It really does make communication easier.
>>>>>>
>
>Point taken.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
>>>>>hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there
first
>>>>>has to be that "good thought."
>>>>
>>>>Ah, but what is meant by the term "good thought"? How many definitions of
>>>>that term are there?
>>>
>>>Whatever it was you meant by the term "good action" ;-)
>>
>>Oh that's really simple, a "good action" is anything that actually helps
>>somebody in a measurable and physical sense.
>>>
>
>Ok, then take your definition of this "good action" and that's what I meant
>by "good thought".  All I was implying was that there's thought before
>action.  In order to get to your "good action" there has to be "good
>thought".  It doesn't matter what my definition of it is because it's only
>relevant in the context of what you meant.  Meditation often times leads to
>good action.

That's a good point! I agree but I think most "meditation" just leads to a
sore bottom.
>
>>
>>>If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
>>>trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
>>>dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb
>>too."
>>
>>Chris: I have to say the comment you just made presents me with the idea
>>that you have a peculiar sense of both values and priorities. How can a
>>reasonably intelligent person equate child molestation with absent
>>mindedness. Now as I knew Albert Einstein from the time I was a small boy
>>until his death, and as I played chess with him, and played violin duets
>>with him, and occasionally stayed in his house in Princeton, I will tell you
>>that he was perfectly capable of "opening a door by himself". Those legends
>>are an ugly part of American's preoccupation with devaluing the
>>super-intelligent.
>>>
>
>Once again you miss the point.

How did I "miss the point" Chris?  It is unconscionable to equate the false
legends of Einstein's absent mindedness (even if they were true) with the
actions of CWL. I repeat, CWL was a pathological liar, he was mentally
unstable, and he was, as Krishnamurti said to Lady Mary Luytens "evil", and
Krishnamurti was in a position to know for sure. An evil man , especially
one who was arguably insane, can be capable of producing no material worth a
second thought. If someone like Leadbeater said to me: "It's a lovely day",
I'd look out the window to check.
>
>>>>spiritual guide? Is a woman who is (as you put it) "crazy" enough to
>>>
>>>I never said that.  I said that the people who prostrated themselves
>>>demonstrated "crazy" behavior.  If your going to be so picky on what words I
>>>use and how I use them, then take them for how I use them.  Don't start
>>>assuming I meant more than I said :-)
>>
>>Chris: If by "demonstrating crazy behaviour" you meant something other than
>>crazy, you should have said something other than "crazy". I simply assume
>>you mean what you say.
>>>
>
>Your either not reading what I'm saying or just enjoy twisting words ;-)  I
>never said Besant demonstrated "crazy" behaviour.  I said the people
>"prostrating" themselves in front of her were.  Somehow you took it to mean
>that I thought Besant was acting "crazy".  This is an incorrect assumption
>on your part.

Chris: If the people who prostrated themselves were "demonstrating crazy
behavior" what was Besant doing or demonstrating by encouraging it?So by
saying that "the people who were prostrating themselves were demonstrating
crazy behaviour" you were distinctly implying that Besant participated in
that "behaviour". Get it? You must learn to say only what you mean. (No
offense meant but: you make on consistent mistake in spelling, "your" is a
possessive, it refers to things like "your hat" etc. when you want to say
'You are" it's "you're", and of course as it's a correct spelling in one
sense, a spell checker" can't flag it).
>
>>>
>
>
>I believe that's true if you are trying to figure out what that writer was
>saying at that time.  I don't believe that's the case if your souly seeking
>information for the benefit of yourself in your current time.  If something
>works for you, use it.  This is the problem your having with understanding
>how people use information as a tool to their own spiritual development.

The trouble Chris is this: What most people call "personal spiritual
development" I call "spiritual masturbation"!
>

>
>If you stand outside the circle, you can see both sides as equally
>important.  If you stand inside one side or the other all you see is how the
>other side is not your own, and because of that, it's bad.  As far as the
>Nazi's being "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
>society, again, it depends from whose side you look.  If we look from our
>side, yes, they were bad.  If we look from the "bad" guy's side, they were
>good.  All that time you spent with Einstein- didn't you ever pick up on his
>theory of relativity?

Chris: No offense intended, but that's the most sophomoric remark I've EVER
encountered. "Relativity" was a theory relating to physics and ONLY to
physics, it had nothing whatsoever to do with human behaviour. Now I think
you know this, and were only being "smart-ass". If you actually believe a
decent human being can rationally "stand outside" that particular "circle"
than I am at an absolute loss as to how to view you as a human being.
Comments like that make me think that you, at least, haven't understood much
of not simply theosophy but any moral teaching. Because what you just said
Chris, is a perfect example of what "amorality" means. An amoral person
cannot even think of spiritual development.
>
>>Now as to your question: Yes there is only one unified field of energy and
>>it makes up the cosmos, and everything within that cosmos are nexii within
>>that unified field of energy. Good and bad have nothing to do with any
>>context outside of the physical, BUT the Nazis and their death camps were
>>part of the physical realities and there is the ONLY place where the
>>dualities of "good and bad" exist. Chris, if you had ever seen Auswitz and
>>Dachau and Treblinka as I did, then I am certain you wouldn't be playing
>>sophomoric little word games on the Nazis and their sympathizers and
>apologists.
>>>
>>
>
>I think it would help if you tried to understand my point without your
>prejudiced attitude.  I understand you saw the horrors that the Nazi's
>committed, but try to get past that and listen to what I'm saying.  In order
>to call the Nazi's "absolutely" bad, there can be no other side to look
>from.  And if there was no other side to look from, there'd be no good and
>bad.  It's interchangeable and relative, not absolute.  They can be
>absolutely bad in your and mine opinion, but in someone else's (another
>baddie for instance), they're not.  That's all I'm trying to get across.

Oh I get your point Chris> I simply refuse to accept it. In this instance it
doesn't matter what the other side may think. There are other instances of
this too. But I am trying to tell you that in human terms, the idea that
"good and bad are interchangeable and relative" is just dead wrong, and in a
way terribly destructive. This is relativistic de constructionism and it's
probably the most destructive theory ever to be invented. In other words
Chris, I am listening to what you're saying. I just think it's total bullshit!
>
>As far as my sophomoric little word games, your the one whose insisted on my
>being exact with what I say.  In order for that to happen, we both have to
>agree on the definitions of the words we use.

Oh that's true, but the way to do that WITHOUT being sophomoric is to ask
the other person "What do you mean by......?"
>

>>Chris: Your statement is a non-sequitur. "Occult Chemistry" is just one of
>>Leadbeater's little frauds.
>>>
>
>Of all people to say I'm being non-sequitur.  I disagree, your dismissing
>the validity of Occult Chemistry because it is based on clairvoyance, a
>paranormal activity.  How is my statement non-sequitur?

How is it a non-sequitur? Well it is so because it is making a false
assumption, and then going on to make a statement based upon that false
assumption. The "false assumption" is that I (or anyone) who rejects "Occult
Chemistry" as nonsense, is doing so as part of a rejection of paranormal
activities. But that is an assumption that is wrong. I, and many others,
reject "Occult Chemistry" Because it's author was insane. We reject not the
idea of a paranormal investigation of particle theory but we reject this
particular version because of this particular author.
>
>>>
>>>>Let me put this as simply and clearly as I can. Theosophy is a process
>>>>because it is an intellectual catalyst which motivates a person to seek an
>>>>understanding of abstractions concerning reality (truth), through study and
>>>>experimentation by way of the "Three Objects". It is a process because it is
>>>>an activity which a person must perform by and for themselves. It is a
>>>>process because another person's understanding is not your own. It is a
>>>>process because it's something which a person must DO, not learn about. Core
>>>>Theosophy  is, as I see it, a total avoidance of the process. As I see it,
>>>>"Core Theosophy" is a way people who don't want to go through the process
>>>>themselves, try to get someone else to do it for them. But, unfortunately
>>>>for them, that's not at all possible. It's a thing one must do totally on
>>>>one's own.
>>>>
>
>Why isn't it possible for people to build on other people's work?  Why can't
>the "process" start on various levels.  If everyone started at the same
>place, we would still be back in the stone age.  People go through the
>process all the time, it just doesn't always start at the same place.  If I
>choose to read the early works of Theosophists and start my process from
>where they left off, does it make my process invalid, or non-Theosophical?

Oh everyone builds on the information they gain by various means, that's
entirely self-evident. BUT, if you start your building on a weak or false
foundation then the edifice you construct will not stand for long. May I
suggest that you drop the "levels" business it's strictly an ego trip.
Metaphysics and occultism have nothing at all to do with why we're not still
in the stone age and I think you know this. But spiritually if the
information that goes into your data bank is bullshit you can do nothing
valid with it. I don't expect you to like what I'm telling you, but at least
you will have heard it.
>
>>>
>>>When someone asks you what Theosophy is...what do you tell them?  Why are
>>>there all these "Theosophical" books that talk about the "Astral" body or
>>>the "Solar Logos"?  Are they not part of Theosophy?
>>>
>>>Chris Allen
>>>
>>What do I tell people? I tell them that theosophy is a process through which
>>one seeks personal growth and understanding and an increase in knowledge and
>>experience through the pursuit of the "Three Objects" while keeping always
>>in mind the motto of the movement "There is NO religion higher than "truth"
>
>I agree completely.
>
>>(reality). I tell them to forget any "Theosophical Books written after about
>>1878. I tell them that all of the books written by Leadbeater and his
>>disciples are pseudo-theosophical mythology, and that while they're fun to
>>read, they are meaningless unless proven by personal experience of what they
>>say.
>>
>>alexis dolgorukii
>>>
>
>Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?

I think you already know the answer to your question Because I have
adequately demonstrated what I think of CWL and why.

>
>Chris Allen
>
>(Notice, no advertisement! :)
>
Oh good!

Alexis
>

From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Mon Jun 24 19:12:06 1996
Date:          Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:09:06 -0300
From: 
Subject:       Origen&reincarnation?
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <84C0024B8@serv.peb.ufrj.br>

Konstantin Zaitzev cites some parts from De Principiis, that talk about reincarnation.
I search for these parts in http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers at file ECF04.TXT. There, you
can find the translated version of Rufinus, and some fragments from original greek text.

Yes, Origen said that there is several worlds, not necessarily simultaneous in time.
BOOK III.CHAP. V
we say that not then for the first time did God begin to work when He made this visible world;
but as, after its destruction, there will be another world, so also we believe that others
existed before the present came into being. And both of these positions will be confirmed by
the authority of holy Scripture. For that there will be another world after this, is taught by
Isaiah, who says, "There will be new heavens, and a new earth, which I shall make to abide
in my sight, saith the LORD;"(9) and that before this world others also existed is shown by
Ecelesiastes, in the words: "What is that which hath been? Even that which shall be. And
what is that which has been created?
Even this which is to be created: and there is nothing altogether new under the sun. Who
shall speak and declare, Lo, this is new? It hath already been in the ages which have been
before us."(1) By these testimonies it is estabished both that there were ages(2) before our
own, and that there will be others after it. It is not, however, to be supposed that several
worlds existed at once, but that, after the end of this present world, others will take their
beginning;

BOOK II.CHAP. III. -- ON THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD, AND ITS CAUSES.
2...The expression, then, "This corruptible must put on incorruption," is as if the apostle had
said, "This corruptible nature of the body must receive the clothing of incorruption--a soul
possessing in itself incorruptibitity," because it has been clothed with Christ, who is the
Wisdom and Word of God. But when this body, which at some future period we shall
possess in a more glorious state, shall have become a partaker of life, it will then, in addition
to being immortal, become also incorruptible...And then it will be deservedly said by all, "O death,
where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin." If these conclusions,
 then, seem to hold good, it follows that we must believe our condition at some future time to be
 incorporeal; and if this is admitted, and all are said to be subjected to Christ, this (incorporeity)
 also must necessarily be bestowed on all to whom the subjection to Christ extends; since all who
are subject to Christ will be in the end subject to God the Father, to whom Christ is said to deliver
 up the kingdom; and thus it appears that then also the need of bodies will cease.[1] And if it
ceases, bodily matter returns to nothing, as formerly also it did not exist.
6...Our Lord and Saviour also points out a certain other world besides this visible one, which it
would indeed be difficult to describe and make known. He says, "I am not of this world."[10]
For, as if He were of a certain other world,...But from what Clement seems to indicate when he says,
"The ocean is impassable to men, and those worlds which are behind it," speaking in the plural
 number of the worlds which are behind it, which he intimates are administered and governed by the
same providence of the Most High God, he appears to throw out to us some germs of that view by
 which the whole universe of existing things, celestial and super-celestial, earthly and infernal, is
 generally called one perfect world, within which, or by which, other
worlds, if any there are, must be supposed to be contained....
 Finally, they summon the book of Baruch the prophet to bear witness to this assertion,
because in it the seven worlds or heavens are more clearly pointed out. Nevertheless, above
that sphere which they call non-wandering (aplanh), they will have another
sphere to exist,

Origen never says that someone that die will reborn again. The souls pre-existed in another
world and fall away at this world.
BOOK IV.23. And perhaps as those here, dying according to the death common to all, are, in
consequence of the deeds done here, so arranged as to obtain different places according to
the proportion of their sins, if they should be deemed worthy of the place called Hades;[2] so
those there dying, so to speak, descend into this Hades, being judged deserving of different
abodes--better or worse--throughout all this space of earth, and (of being descended) from
parents of different kinds,[5] so that an Israelite may sometimes fall among Scythians, and
an Egyptian descend into Judea. And yet the Saviour came to gather together the lost sheep
of the house of Israel; but many of the Israelites not having yielded to His teaching,
nation, or in a different mode of life, or surrounded by infirmities of a different kind, or to be
descended from religious parents, or parents who ate not religious; so that it may
sometimes happen that an Israelite descends among the Scythians, and a poor Egyptian is
brought down to Judea...

BOOK II.CHAP. IX.--ON THE WORLD AND THE MOVEMENTS OF RATIONAL CREATURES,WHETHER GOOD OR BAD ; AND ON
THE CAUSES OF THEM.
    7. But even holy Scripture does not appear to me to be altogether silent on the nature of
this secret, as when the Apostle Paul, in discussing the case of Jacob and Esau, says: "For
the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth, it was said, The
elder  shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob  have I loved, but Esau have I hated."[1]
And after that, he answers himself, and says, "What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God?" ... and says, "God forbid."[2]... if we feel
that he was worthily beloved by God, according to the deserts of his previous life, so as to
deserve to be preferred before his brother; so also is it with regard to heavenly creatures, if
we notice that diversity was not the original condition of the creature, but that, owing to
causes that have previously existed, a different office is prepared by the Creator for each one
in proportion to the degree of his merit, on this ground, indeed, that each one, in respect of
having been created by God an understanding, or a rational spirit, has, according to the
movements of his mind and the feelings of his soul, gained for himself a greater or less
amount of merit, and has become either an object of love to God, or else one of dislike to
Him;

Fotios century IX, talk about Origenists, that is, followers of Alexadrian'school, and
it's not clear to me that Fotios was referring to Origen's works or to some doctrine preached
after Origen at  century III.

Abrantes

Abrantes
From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jun 24 22:23:02 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:23:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Teaching theosophy in Lodges/Branches/ Study centers
In-Reply-To: <9606241839.AA10380@toto.csustan.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:

>
> Ramadoss writes:
>
> >With the present procedure of putting new lodges on a
> >provisional/probational mode until their activities are
> >"evaluated" by the powers be to see if they are satisfied, what
> >would happen if a group of members, all of them members at
> >large, but meet regularly and carryon any kind of activity they
> >want?
>
> What is the criteria upon which this "evaluation" is made?

	I donot know.

	...doss

>
> JHE
>
> ------------------------------------------
>    |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
>       |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
>          |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
>             |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
>                ------------------------------------------
>
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 23:29:09 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:29:09 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624192907_338305776@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Gertie,
Ask Kathleen.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Jun 24 23:34:24 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:34:24 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960624193421_338311735@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: How many Theosophists?

Alex,
And one hundred thousand drop dead of fright each time a cow sneezes.

Chuck the Heretic
From coallen@cris.com Mon Jun 24 23:54:41 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606242354.TAA15955@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 04:22 PM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>I think, Chris, where we actually disagree on this subject is in the fact
>that you are willing to give religion credit for it's original motivations
>as you see them. While I do not! To me it's what they are now that matters
>not what they were intended to be. Now, as you know I don't believe in the
>reality of the M\"Mahatma Letters" but instead believe that HPB herself
>produced and apported them. But, on the basis of them being HPB's thoughts,
>let me quote to you from from letter 10 in the Mahatma Letters (first three
>editions) it's alleged to be from "Master K.H.):
>
>" Work out every cause of evil you can think of, trace it to its origin, and
>you will have solved one-third of the problems of evil. The other two-thirds
>are caused by religion. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of
>the opportunity. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of
>humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false
>pretense of saving them."
>
>So you see Chris, I am not alone in my views of religion HPB at least
>supports me, or The Master K.H. does, as you choose.
>>
>

I do believe that for the masses, it is ignorance that created gods.  I also
believe that people personify natural forces as gods in order to bring them
closer to their level of understanding.  Pagans do this quite often.  They
realize and acknowledge certain forces in the universe, but tend to
personify them into the deity of their choice.  I don't particularly agree
with this concept, but if it works for someone, I won't belittle it either.

There are people who take advantage of other peoples ignorance.  It doesn't
just happen in religion though.  It happens all the time.  I'm sure it's
happened to you many times.  When we don't know how to do something (because
of our ignorance) we must pay someone else to do it.  And almost all the
time, there's someone else there capable of fulfilling that need, be it a
plumber, an electrician, or a tele-evangelist.

I don't believe it's good that people let others take advantage of them
through religion.  Religion is an easy area for that to occur in though.
And it is that people are *letting* others take advantage of them.  If this
wasn't the case, the orthodox church would have died out ages ago.  It's
there to serve the masses, and to perpetuate itself.  It does this through
any means possible.  Take it away from the people who rely on it and they
will find something else to pacify themselves.

I do believe, though, that religion does benefit people.  It presents a set
of moral dogma to live by.  This dogma usually consists of items that are
for the betterment of mankind.  Perhaps not all of the tenets are beneficial
to everyone, but they're generally beneficial to the masses and their level
of spiritual development.

Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the Mahatma Letters.
Perhaps sometime in the near future.

>Until they disappointed Sinnett yes I do believe he came close to

Out of curiousity, how did the Masters dissappoint Sinnett?  I'm afraid I'm
not very well up on the history or lives any of the early theosophists.  All
I know of them is based on the books they've written.

>worshipping them. As to Leadbeater, as all of his connections with them were
>in the Astral Plane I don't think any of them are anything but
>hallucinatory. It's that he encouraged others in this attitude that I
>disapprove of. Prostration is not respectful, it is self-abasing, and
>self-abasement is entirely negative. Let's get this totally straight: as far
>as I see it based on a really in depth study of the matter, Charles Webster
>Leadbeater was a pathological Liar, he was mentally unstable, and he was a
>totally immoral man. That makes everything he said extremely suspect.
>>
>>>>

What is your belief as far as the various planes of existance go?  Did
Leadbeater actually encourage others to worship the Masters?  Bear with me
on my ignorance, as I said earlier, I know very little of these peoples lives.

I agree with your view on prostration.  I think the encouragement and act of
it is negative and self-serving.  Something that should be above those who
are on the path of enlightenment.  Can you give me either examples or point
me in the right direction for some basis for your belief in CWL being a
mentally unstable immoral liar?  I'm geniunly curious as to why you hold
such disdain for someone I've learned so much from (via his books).

Even if he was as you say, I agree that it would make someone cautious to
follow what says/writes, but I don't believe it should be disregarded solely
on that purpose.  Crowley's moral behaviour was highly questionable, but
many of the things he wrote were extremely intelligent and worthwhile
(although many of them sarcastic and vain too).

>>
>>I'm sorry, but your wrong.  Look at the first few pages of any of Powell's
>>works.  It lists the people he compiled from.  They include Leadbeater,
>>Besant, Wood, Van der Leeuw, Long, Wedgewood, and others.  They were a
>>compilation of these people's writings, but he's compiled the literature on
>>the subjects in an intelligible way.  As far as Isis, I've read both volumes
>>of it.  I like to recommend SD over Isis for the mechanics of Theosophy.
>
>Well, you just proved I am not wrong, everyone of the people you listed is a
>"creature" of Lead beaters's. Oh I agree A.E. Powell is very readable, but
>it's what he says that matters to me not how he says it. One other thing you
>apparently haven't picked up from our communications. The so-called
>"Mechanics of theosophy" are the part of theosophy I consider to be both
>irrelevant and nonsense. To me, the "mechanics of theosophy" are entirely
>fairy tales and useless in human life and development. That's the primary

I just picked up on this :)  This is the area in which we have our biggest
divergence in beliefs.

>difference between a "Process theosophist" and others, we, for the most
>part, entirely reject the "mechanics of theosophy". For me, the S.D. is for
>the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've told Martin Euser, once
>you get past the motto and the three objects, it's almost ALL ridiculous
>nonsense. My own personal question is beginning to be can the two "types of
>theosophists", i.e. "process theosophists" and "orthodox Theosophists" ever
>meaningfully relate on any level? Or is it time for " total separation"?
>Reaction like Bjorn Roxendol's make me think that no rational relationship
>is possible. Reactions like yours gives me hope. You and I are at what I
>guess would be about 85% disgreement and yet our communications remain
>friendly, that's a good sign
>>

Now I understand where your coming from and your two definitions of
theosophy.  I must say, I like them.  I have no doubt as to whether or not
the two types can relate.  They most certainly can- the question, in my
mind, is whether it will be a good relation or a bad one.  I can see either
side getting extremely upset with the other for not holding their own belief
system yet calling it the same thing.  Personally, I view both types as
essentially the same.  The end result I believe is the same between the two,
it's just the rule system that's different

>>Ok, then take your definition of this "good action" and that's what I meant
>>by "good thought".  All I was implying was that there's thought before
>>action.  In order to get to your "good action" there has to be "good
>>thought".  It doesn't matter what my definition of it is because it's only
>>relevant in the context of what you meant.  Meditation often times leads to
>>good action.
>
>That's a good point! I agree but I think most "meditation" just leads to a
>sore bottom.
>>

I would think if there was no activity to the meditation, it could just lead
to a sore bottom.  The whole idea of meditation is not relaxation (usually),
it's mind expansion.  I can site personal examples if your interested.

>>>
>>>>If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
>>>>trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
>>>>dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb
>>>too."
>>>
>>>Chris: I have to say the comment you just made presents me with the idea
>>>that you have a peculiar sense of both values and priorities. How can a
>>>reasonably intelligent person equate child molestation with absent
>>>mindedness. Now as I knew Albert Einstein from the time I was a small boy
>>>until his death, and as I played chess with him, and played violin duets
>>>with him, and occasionally stayed in his house in Princeton, I will tell you
>>>that he was perfectly capable of "opening a door by himself". Those legends
>>>are an ugly part of American's preoccupation with devaluing the
>>>super-intelligent.
>>>>
>>
>>Once again you miss the point.
>
>How did I "miss the point" Chris?  It is unconscionable to equate the false
>legends of Einstein's absent mindedness (even if they were true) with the
>actions of CWL. I repeat, CWL was a pathological liar, he was mentally
>unstable, and he was, as Krishnamurti said to Lady Mary Luytens "evil", and
>Krishnamurti was in a position to know for sure. An evil man , especially
>one who was arguably insane, can be capable of producing no material worth a
>second thought. If someone like Leadbeater said to me: "It's a lovely day",
>I'd look out the window to check.
>>

The point being that even if he was insane, I've learned something
worthwhile from his material.  And if people are learning things they
consider worthwhile, his writings are worthwhile.

>
>Chris: If the people who prostrated themselves were "demonstrating crazy
>behavior" what was Besant doing or demonstrating by encouraging it?So by
>saying that "the people who were prostrating themselves were demonstrating
>crazy behaviour" you were distinctly implying that Besant participated in
>that "behaviour". Get it? You must learn to say only what you mean. (No
>offense meant but: you make on consistent mistake in spelling, "your" is a
>possessive, it refers to things like "your hat" etc. when you want to say
>'You are" it's "you're", and of course as it's a correct spelling in one
>sense, a spell checker" can't flag it).
>>
>>>>

If she was encouraging it, then I'd call her behavior "crazy" too :)  That
wasn't implicitely stated and I didn't catch the inference.  As far as my
spelling goes, your right- it's pathetic.  My fingers just seem to fly by
themselves sometimes   I've tried to take more time in writing this
email and made it a point to make myself more aware of it in the future.  I
suppose if I want what I write to be given some consideration I should take
the same consideration in writing it :)

>>
>>I believe that's true if you are trying to figure out what that writer was
>>saying at that time.  I don't believe that's the case if your souly seeking
>>information for the benefit of yourself in your current time.  If something
>>works for you, use it.  This is the problem your having with understanding
>>how people use information as a tool to their own spiritual development.
>
>The trouble Chris is this: What most people call "personal spiritual
>development" I call "spiritual masturbation"!
>>

I believe that's true on many occassions.  But at least they're trying, that
in of itself is worthwhile.  Personally, I view any attempt to better
oneself as a beneficial act.

>>
>>If you stand outside the circle, you can see both sides as equally
>>important.  If you stand inside one side or the other all you see is how the
>>other side is not your own, and because of that, it's bad.  As far as the
>>Nazi's being "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
>>society, again, it depends from whose side you look.  If we look from our
>>side, yes, they were bad.  If we look from the "bad" guy's side, they were
>>good.  All that time you spent with Einstein- didn't you ever pick up on his
>>theory of relativity?
>
>Chris: No offense intended, but that's the most sophomoric remark I've EVER
>encountered. "Relativity" was a theory relating to physics and ONLY to
>physics, it had nothing whatsoever to do with human behaviour. Now I think
>you know this, and were only being "smart-ass". If you actually believe a

Actually I firmly believe in what I was saying.  I also believe that
everything happens for a reason, even if we cannot begin to fathom why.  I
do believe that everything is relative from the universe's perspective- it's
all part of the same thing.

>decent human being can rationally "stand outside" that particular "circle"
>than I am at an absolute loss as to how to view you as a human being.
>Comments like that make me think that you, at least, haven't understood much
>of not simply theosophy but any moral teaching. Because what you just said
>Chris, is a perfect example of what "amorality" means. An amoral person
>cannot even think of spiritual development.
>>

I know right from wrong, but I do believe that each depends on the other.  I
may not always be able to see why something happens, but I have faith that
there's a valid reason (good or bad) for it to happen.  Perhaps "eternal
optimist" would be a better term for me than amoral ;-)

>>>Now as to your question: Yes there is only one unified field of energy and
>>>it makes up the cosmos, and everything within that cosmos are nexii within
>>>that unified field of energy. Good and bad have nothing to do with any
>>>context outside of the physical, BUT the Nazis and their death camps were
>>>part of the physical realities and there is the ONLY place where the
>>>dualities of "good and bad" exist. Chris, if you had ever seen Auswitz and
>>>Dachau and Treblinka as I did, then I am certain you wouldn't be playing
>>>sophomoric little word games on the Nazis and their sympathizers and
>>apologists.
>>>>
>>I think it would help if you tried to understand my point without your
>>prejudiced attitude.  I understand you saw the horrors that the Nazi's
>>committed, but try to get past that and listen to what I'm saying.  In order
>>to call the Nazi's "absolutely" bad, there can be no other side to look
>>from.  And if there was no other side to look from, there'd be no good and
>>bad.  It's interchangeable and relative, not absolute.  They can be
>>absolutely bad in your and mine opinion, but in someone else's (another
>>baddie for instance), they're not.  That's all I'm trying to get across.
>
>Oh I get your point Chris> I simply refuse to accept it. In this instance it
>doesn't matter what the other side may think. There are other instances of
>this too. But I am trying to tell you that in human terms, the idea that
>"good and bad are interchangeable and relative" is just dead wrong, and in a
>way terribly destructive. This is relativistic de constructionism and it's
>probably the most destructive theory ever to be invented. In other words
>Chris, I am listening to what you're saying. I just think it's total bullshit!
>>

Perhaps this is why the idea of the interchangeability of such things is not
taught exoterically.  When someone sees the Yin and Yang symbols, they don't
think, "Wow, cool.  Good and bad are interchangeable", they typically just
realize the dual nature of life- if that.

>>As far as my sophomoric little word games, your the one whose insisted on my
>>being exact with what I say.  In order for that to happen, we both have to
>>agree on the definitions of the words we use.
>
>Oh that's true, but the way to do that WITHOUT being sophomoric is to ask
>the other person "What do you mean by......?"
>>

I'm not sure what you mean here...so, What *do* you mean by the above?

>
>>>Chris: Your statement is a non-sequitur. "Occult Chemistry" is just one of
>>>Leadbeater's little frauds.
>>>>
>>
>>Of all people to say I'm being non-sequitur.  I disagree, your dismissing
>>the validity of Occult Chemistry because it is based on clairvoyance, a
>>paranormal activity.  How is my statement non-sequitur?
>
>How is it a non-sequitur? Well it is so because it is making a false
>assumption, and then going on to make a statement based upon that false
>assumption. The "false assumption" is that I (or anyone) who rejects "Occult
>Chemistry" as nonsense, is doing so as part of a rejection of paranormal
>activities. But that is an assumption that is wrong. I, and many others,
>reject "Occult Chemistry" Because it's author was insane. We reject not the
>idea of a paranormal investigation of particle theory but we reject this
>particular version because of this particular author.
>>

Ok, I didn't understand that you were rejecting it due to who wrote it.

>>
>>Why isn't it possible for people to build on other people's work?  Why can't
>>the "process" start on various levels.  If everyone started at the same
>>place, we would still be back in the stone age.  People go through the
>>process all the time, it just doesn't always start at the same place.  If I
>>choose to read the early works of Theosophists and start my process from
>>where they left off, does it make my process invalid, or non-Theosophical?
>
>Oh everyone builds on the information they gain by various means, that's
>entirely self-evident. BUT, if you start your building on a weak or false
>foundation then the edifice you construct will not stand for long. May I
>suggest that you drop the "levels" business it's strictly an ego trip.
>Metaphysics and occultism have nothing at all to do with why we're not still
>in the stone age and I think you know this. But spiritually if the
>information that goes into your data bank is bullshit you can do nothing
>valid with it. I don't expect you to like what I'm telling you, but at least
>you will have heard it.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that since you believe CWL
to be an invalid person to learn from that anything I might have learned
from him is not worthwhile?  Please expand.

>>
>>Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?
>
>I think you already know the answer to your question Because I have
>adequately demonstrated what I think of CWL and why.
>
Yes, you have.

I had to cut some of the paragraphs from this email to make it fit in my
program's memory.  Apparently my system thinks Alexis and I are getting long
winded.  You guys don't believe that do you??   Anyway, hope those who
are following can still follow.

Chris

From coallen@cris.com Tue Jun 25 00:01:53 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:01:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606250001.UAA18887@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: filtering and forwarding

At 03:16 PM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>At 10:16 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>If you look at the end of the message you'll see I jokingly laughed about
>>it.  Thoses were my words :)
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>O.K. by me. But I had purposefully filtered Mr. Roxendol. I had what seems
>to me a valid reason to do so. That reason is that I have absolutely no
>desire to communicate with him, on any subject, or for any reason. As Mr.

I understand that.  I didn't forward it with the intention of slipping it
past your defense grid   I merely was responding to his message.

>Roxendol so clearly put it, he and I live in entirely different universes,
>and I am more than content that it should remain that way. I had made that
>desire for no contact fairly clear, or so I believe, and so I wonder why it
>is felt necessary to do an "end run" as it were. Are we not allowed to "pick
>and choose" who we wish to communicate with on the internet? Because my

I believe that is definately the case.  We most certainly should be able to
pick and chose who we talk to.

>filter program has developed what I think are called "glitches", I have
>taken it off line (Is that the proper expression? You obviously know lots
>more about these damn machines than I do.) It had taken to filtering

I firmly believe my computer's doing things behind my back to try and
directly provoke me.  Glitch or bug's a good term-  but don't think that
gives you a license to use Raid on the monitor!   Just kidding.

>everything and not just the three names on it's list (mine being one of
>them). So what I am going to do until I can "fix" it, is simply delete my
>own messages and the other two people's as well, unread. If you like, and
>ask me to, I will gladly detail why I put Mr. Roxendol on that list.
>

No need to rehash old problems.  I'm sure I'll develop my own opinions of
people in due time :)

Sorry for the intrusion.

Chris

From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Jun 25 07:12:57 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:12:57 -0700
From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625071257.0067c174@beta.webcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Chuck:

[writing to Doss]

>The idea of all members-at-large was something the founders never saw, but
>there was no way they could in that time.  With our means of communication,
>lodges are an interesting anachronism, a leftover from the days of horses and
>buggies.

Are you sure? Groups of people that get together to explore the spiritual
and to offer each other mutual support -- that's something as old as
humanity. It's nothing new nor do I forsee it losing its usefulness in
the coming ages.

Also useful are classes, organized groups for purpose of study. Classes
with instructors that are knowledgeable in the subject are more useful
than those with equally-uninformed beginning students, but even there
we can gain something from *knowing each other in person*.

Things like theos-l and new forms of transferring information are helpful
additions to our toolset, but compliment, not replace group activities.

Where I see lodges as getting run down is in their low energy level, their
drooping enthusiasm, their loss of power to make a dramatic change in the
lives of their members. They may, too often, have turned into book-study
clubs. This is fine as far as it goes, but it's only the first of many
steps along the way.

Part of this decay in lodges may be in a loss of a sense of wonder, a
fading sense of mystery, a sense of majesty and

From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Jun 25 00:32:56 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:32:56 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606250032.AA23156@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Max Heindel


e>> Max Heindel. An important figure in one of the Rosicrucean
Fellowships.

z>When he wrote most of his books?  It's interesting, because his
>conception closely meets theosophical, but rather Leadbeater or
>Bailey than early theosophy.

That is because he was involved in Theosophy during the era of
Leadbeater/Besant theosophy early in this century.  He was once
Vice-President of the Los Angeles Branch of the Theosophical
Society.

JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------


From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Tue Jun 25 00:42:57 1996
Date: 24 Jun 96 20:42:57 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Plane/Nature/Essence correspondences
Message-Id: <960625004257_76400.1474_HHL30-1@CompuServe.COM>

Wycked God's Chart:
>Plane		Nature		Essence
>--------	---------	----------
>Logoic		?		?
>Monadic		?		?
>Atmic		Spiritual	                  Spirit
>Bhuddic		Harmony		?
>Mental		Intelligence	Thought
>Astral		Feeling		Emotion
>Physical	                  Energy		Matter

A few comments:  "Bhuddic" should be "Buddhic" and its essence
is Ideation.   Why is the nature of matter "Energy?"  What is the
difference between Energy and Spirit?  I would suggest the nature
of matter to be Firmness or Touch, rather than Energy.  I would
suggest Intuition instead of Harmony (which you can get on all
levels).   There are no words for the higher questions marks,
and I doubt that but a handful understand what "Spiritual" or
"Spirit" even mean.  Otherwise, nice chart.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI


From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 01:25:15 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 02:25:15 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Karma
In-Reply-To: <31CE029E.31F7@concentric.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <31CE029E.31F7@concentric.net>, Wycked God
 writes
>Wycked God is man, expressed as 10 (the five elements).  The dot stands for
>man's link to the
>unmanifest.  Man, being inherantly wicked and arrogant, goes around purporting
>his own wisdom.
>And that's where the name comes from.
>
>P.S.  The three tilda's also have meaning.  Showing the three divine elements
>and their dual
>nature.
>
>
>~~~Wycked, 0+1+2+3+4=10 .
>"Are you ready for my wisdom?"

Serves me right for asking ...

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 Jun 25 02:26:02 1996
Date: 24 Jun 96 22:26:02 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma
Message-Id: <960625022602_76400.1474_HHL85-1@CompuServe.COM>

>How does this work in the concept of the All?  Meaning, how does
>this law affect the All in it's first action?
> I would assume that it was the I, and the nothingness the Not-I.
>The I created the wave upon the Not-I.
>Couldn't everything be taken back to this first wave?
>And if so, how does that effect free will?

	The only way that I can answer you here is via the
doctrine of dualities and the doctrine of monads.  I am not sure what
you mean by the "All?"  The totality of everything, or that which only
exists above the first and highest cosmic plane?  The Many and the
One are a duality.  The Many are a bizzillion monads.  The One
is the fact that all monads are alike and exist outside of spacetime,
and thus there is no difference between any two monads, and so
the Many that exist separately on the planes of our planetary chain,
form a Oneness above it.  Above the highest plane is the All-as-One,
while below exist the All-as-Many.  The Many can be thought of a "rays"
of the One, or as individual god-sparks of the one divine flame,
and so on.
	Free will only exists on the cosmic planes of our
planetary chain, and thus only makes sense to the Many.  Outside
of space and time, free will makes no sense because there is
no separate I remaining to possess it.  The Spiritual Monad is
above or outside of our planetary chain.  The I-Not-I Monad is
within our planetary chain.  The Spiritual Monad splits up into an
I-Not-I Monad when it enters the first cosmic plane.  As this monad
descends down through the planes, it splits into a dualistic I and
Not-I.  Only after this split does the concept of  free will make sense.
	The "first action" of the All-as-One is this basic split into
the All-as-Many.  But the split of the I-Not-I Monad into an I and
Not-I is the first phase of duality, and the origin of karma.  Now,
since the Many exist as a bizzillion I's and Not-I's, they form a
lifewave that is held together by its own collective karma.  This
lifewave undergoes peregrinations around the globes of the
planetary chain and as it does so, the collective karma grows
and defines itself.  We are now on the upward Arc of the 4th
Round and have formed what we call a human lifewave with its
own collective karma, but each I-Not-I Monad within the lifewave
also has its own individual karma or karmic burden that must
be worked out.  This can take a million lifetimes, or ten seconds,
depending.
	Our collective karma will only be eliminated when
we return to the "first wave" as you say.  This will be at the end of
the 7th Round.  But individually we can expel our individual karma
at any time.  This implies the re-joining of our I and Not-I.  But
when we do this, we leave others behind.  The bodhisattva
rejects this option in order to stay within the lifewave until the
end of the 7th Round, when all I-Not-I Monads return to the One.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

PS.  Thanks for the nice words about Enochian Physics.


From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 01:40:20 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 02:40:20 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy
In-Reply-To: <960624013959_337538361@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960624013959_337538361@emout17.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Alan,
>"in the service of the Mistresses"???
>Alan, I didn't know you were into that.  Of course, I'm a top, myself.
>
>Chuck the Heretic

I just get fed up with hearing about "Masters" - let the women in, say
I!  Oh Yes.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 00:59:13 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 01:59:13 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL03D.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0


This concludes the REPLY to the President's Letter of November 1908
begun as CWL03a.TXT.  The various sections have now been collated and
will be available shortly on request as a single file, CWL03.TXT

Mention is made in this section of "The Cipher Letter," which was, not
surprisingly, separately printed in its entirety for those who wished to
avail themselves of its contents.  This will CWL04.TXT.  It is quite
short.  A.B. (Ed.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Documents.

On p. 6 Mrs. Besant writes, quoting a previous letter of hers (the
   "Simla Letter"):

"On June 7th [1906] I received an account of the acceptance by Mr.
   Leadbeater before the Committee of the facts alleged in the
   evidence."

As this might give the unknowing reader the impression that Mrs.
   Besant had not had previously before her any of the "facts
   alleged in the evidence," or any knowledge of the "acceptance by
   Mr. Leadbeater" of them, to make it clear we recite the facts.

In February, 1906, Mrs. Besant herself was the first to receive the
   charges and original evidence on which they were based, from
   America, drawn up and laid before her by the two chief officials
   of the Section (in their private capacity), and also by the two
   chief officers of the E.S. there, in a letter dated January 25.

Mr. Leadbeater, to whom also a copy had been forwarded, was then
   with Mrs. Besant at Benares. After consultation with her, Mr.
   Leadbeater wrote a letter of confession and excuse (dated
   February 27) to the then American General Secretary; and Mrs.
   Besant also sent a letter to the chief officer of the E.S.  in
   which she repeated Mr. Leadbeater's excuses, but expressed
   disagreement with his teaching; in view of Mr. Leadbeater's
   promise to abstain from this teaching in future, however, she
   did not favour the "searching investigation" demanded, and said
   she saw no reason why he should be withdrawn from activity.

So far all had been kept as silent as possible. Mr. Leadbeater's
   letter and Mrs. Besant's reply being entirely unsatisfactory,
   the Executive Committee of the American Section then felt
   themselves compelled to lay the whole matter officially before
   Colonel Olcott, the President-Founder of the Society, who
   promptly called together an Advisory Committee consisting of the
   then Executive Committee of the British Section, to which
   Section Mr. Leadbeater belonged. The members of this Committee
   were: Mr. Sinnett, Dr. Nunn, Mr. Mead, Mrs. Stead, Miss Ward,
   Miss Spink, Mrs. Hooper, Mr. Bertram Keightley, Mr. Thomas, and
   Mr. Glass. There were also present Mr. Burnett, as
   representative and delegate of the Executive Committee of the
   American Section, and M. Bernard, the representative of the
   Executive Committee of the French Section.

The documents submitted by the American Executive consisted of: (1)
   The charges and evidence already laid before Mrs.  Besant; (2)
   Mr. Leadbeater's letter of confession and excuse; (3) rebuttal
   statements of the boys to some of the statements made by Mr.
   Leadbeater in his letter. and (4) corroborative evidence and
   testimony in two further cases obtained after sending to Mrs.
   Besant the first evidence on which the charges were brought.

The original charges, based on the evidence of two boys, were:

FIRST: That he is teaching young boys given into his care habits of
   self-abuse and demoralizing personal practices.

SECOND: That he does this with deliberate intent and under the
   guise of occult training or with the promise of the increase of
   physical manhood.

THIRD: That he has demanded, at least in one case, promises of the
   utmost secrecy.

It was with regard to the rebuttal evidence (3) and the further
   corroborative evidence (4), that Mr. Leadbeater said at the
   beginning of the inquiry, as quoted by Mrs. Besant (p.7):

"I have only just now seen anything at all of the documents, except
   the [read "that"] first letter."

This "first letter" is the first lengthy document containing the
   charges and evidence laid before Mrs. Besant in February.
   Below, in parallel columns, will be found Mrs. Besant's version
   of what took place, together with the full text of the Minutes
   from which she is supposed to be quoting.

{1996 editorial note: in preparing this text for Internet use, the
   parallel columns cannot be placed as such, and the text of these
   two columns follow as separate paragraphs - A.B.}


MRS. BESANT'S LETTER (p. 7).

As to the "evidence," he stated at the time: "I have only just now
   seen anything at all of the documents, except the first letter";
   on his hasty perusal of them, he stated that some of the points
   "are untrue and others so distorted that they do not represent
   the facts"; yet it was on these points, unsifted and unproven,
   declared by him to be untrue and distorted, that he was
   condemned, and has since been attacked.

MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY BOARD.

I have only just now seen anything at all of the documents except
   that first letter. There have been other supposed rebuttals and
   other documents which I had only seen to-day and while there are
   a number of points I should challenge as inaccurate, *yet all
   those are minor points and do not affect the great question.* It
   is simply that there are points of so-called rebuttal which are
   untrue and others so distorted that they do not represent the
   facts of the case *but these do not affect the central points.*

It will be seen that the important qualifying phrases italicised by
   us are omitted by. Mrs. Besant.

{The italicised phrases are here marked between asterisks *...*}

This was Mr. Leadbeater's statement at the beginning of the
   inquiry, before he was questioned and had to make some damaging
   further admissions.

Mrs. Besant's statement that it was on the points in the second
   batch of documents only that "he was condemned and has since
   been attacked" is not the fact.

The Committee unanimously advised Col. Olcott to accept Mr.
   Leadbeater's resignation, which was written only just before it
   met, because of his own confession in the first place, and
   because to their amazement he still persisted in defending his
   teaching, and made even further admissions.

At that time in the Society we were unanimous that it was wrong.
   Mr. Leadbeater's teaching had not yet been introduced into the
   "thought of the Theosophical world."

Denunciation of the Committee.

To weaken this unanimous advice Mrs. Besant now denounces some of
   the members of the Committee as unfit to advise Colonel Olcott,
   with whom the ultimate decision rested and whose impartiality
   Mr. Leadbeater freely acknowledged at the end of the inquiry.

In reply to the late President-Founder's question: "I should like
   to ask Mr. Leadbeater if he thinks I have acted impartially?" -
   Mr Leadbeater replied: "Absolutely." (See Minutes.)

Mrs. Besant, nevertheless, declares that "the so-called trial of
   Mr. Leadbeater was a travesty of justice" (p. 7), and so
   asperses the memory of the late President-Founder.

Mr. Leadbeater was not tried judicially; the nature of the
   Committee was twice laid down by Colonel Olcott as follows:

"(a) Of course you know the executive power is vested in me. You
   are here to advise me and to hear what Mr. Leadbeater has to
   say, and to act according to your judgment after hearing him."

"(b) We should not keep in anything, but have frank disclosure. You
   are not sitting judicially, but to advise me what to do."

Mr. Leadbeater was given every opportunity to explain his position
   and justify his conduct; unless, of course, questioning him on
   the evidence is to be considered unfair and a "travesty of
   justice."

To show the baselessness of Mrs. Besant's denunciation, it may be
   stated that the apparently most telling point she tries to make
   - the shooting story - seems to have arisen from a rumour we
   heard at the time, that if the matter became public, and Mr.
   Leadbeater were to return to America, it was likely that a
   relative of one or the boys might "go for him with a shot-gun."
   (E. W.; G. R. S. M.). As to psychic influence, though this is
   quite news to the two of us who sat on the Committee, we may be
   permitted to remark that it is hardly consistent of Mrs. Besant
   to denounce belief in psychic testimony as a disqualification.

The unanimous opinion of the Committee was that such teaching
   should not be given under any circumstances whatever, not even
   to depraved boys, much less therefore to boys who had no
   knowledge of such practices. The only real difference of opinion
   among the members of the Committee was as to whether they should
   advise expulsion or acceptance of resignation only, as
   commensurate with the offence, after Mr. Leadbeater's further
   admissions. They finally took the more lenient course. The
   unanimous decision of the Committee was given in the following
   resolution:

"That having considered certain charges against Mr. Leadbeater, and
   having listened to his explanations, this Committee recommend
   the acceptance by the President-Founder of his resignation
   already offered in anticipation of the Committee's decision."

On p.8, Mrs. Besant now expressly withdraws the condemnation of Mr.
   Leadbeater's advice which she had put on record in her very
   important letter of June, 1906, on the ground that the
   "information" on which she had based it was "false." Its falsity
   is alleged on two points.

First Point of Alleged "Falsity."

(1) With regard to the first (the "fouling" of the mind), it is
   sufficient to quote Mrs. Besant's own words of condemnation, in
   parallel columns with Mr. Leadbeater's own admissions before the
   Advisory Committee.

{Again, the nature of this Internet version requires that the
   parallel columns mentioned be listed in sequence - A.B.}

MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. THOMAS: Your reply as to scarcely recollecting suggests that
   there were so many cases. I should like to know whether in any
   case . . . there was definite action?  Mr. LEADBEATER: You mean
   touch? That might have taken place.  * * * Mr. MEAD: I want to
   ask whether this advice was given on appeal or not?  Mr.
   LEADBEATER: Sometimes without, sometimes with. I advised it at
   times as a prophylactic.

MRS. BESANT'S LETTER OF JUNE 9. 1906.

He [Mr. Leadbeater] denied none of the charges, but in answer to
   questions, very much strengthened them. for he alleged that he
   had actually handled the boys himself, and that he had thus
   dealt with boys before puberty "as a prophylactic." So that the
   advice which was supposed to be given to rescue a boy as a last
   resort, in the grip of sexual passion, became advice putting
   foul ideas into the minds of boys innocent of all sex-impulses.

Still further than this, Mrs. Besant condemned Mr. Leadbeater's
   teaching in all respects.

M. BERNARD: Since Mr. Leadbeater was teaching these boys to help
   them in case of need, considering that men may be in the same
   difficulty, has he taught this to any grown-up men? Has he
   taught the same thing in the same personal way to grown-up men
   as to children?  Mr. LEADBEATER: I believe that at least on two
   occasions in my life I have given that advice to young men as
   better than the one generally adopted.  Col. OLCOTT: Since you
   came into the Society?  Mr. LEADBEATER: I think not, but one
   case might have been. You are probably not aware that one at
   least of the great Church organisations for young men deals with
   the matter in the same manner[!]

MRS. BESANT, IN THE SAME LETTER AS ABOVE.

Let me here place on record my opinion that such teaching as this
   given to men, let alone innocent boys, is worthy of the sternest
   reprobation. It distorts and perverts the sex-instinct,
   implanted in men for the preservation of the race; it degrades
   the ideas of marriage, fatherhood, and motherhood, humanity's
   most sacred ideals; it befouls the imagination, pollutes the
   emotions, and undermines the health.

It will thus be seen that Mrs. Besant's original condemnation was
   based not on "false information," hut on her own interpretation
   of Mr. Leadbeater's admissions.

That the reason for giving the "advice" was sometimes other than
   that professed, may he seen from the fact that, in his letter of
   confession, Mr. Leadbeater admitted that he had told one of the
   boys "that physical growth is frequently promoted by the setting
   in motion of these currents, but that they need regulation." The
   boy's evidence on this point ("the promise of the increase of
   physical manhood") formed the basis of one of the charges. The
   cipher letter further corroborates this evidence.

In the face of the opinion she placed "on record" in 1906, Mrs.
   Besant now denies (p.8) that there was any "fouling" of the
   "imagination" even of the "minds of boys innocent of all
   sex-impulses." Yet (on p.9) she admits it was taught not only to
   boys not yet addicted to the practice, but also to one or two
   "before what is called the age of puberty."

The plea of justification now urged for this extraordinary change
   of opinion is that "certain symptoms had already shown
   themselves either on the physical plane or in the aura."

The giving of this teaching then even to children Mrs.  Besant now
   refuses to condemn in Mr. Leadbeater's case; and thus opens the
   way for any psychic in the Society to justify the teaching of it
   on his bare assertion that he has seen this or that "symptom "
   in a child's aura.

All such excuses and subterfuges we emphatically reject, for the
   practice under any circumstance can never lessen lust but only
   enhance it.

Second Point of Alleged "Falsity."

(2) The second point on the "falsity" of which Mrs. Besant
   withdraws her condemnation is the question of frequency. Here
   Mr. Leadbeater's denial, quoted by Mrs. Besant (p. 9), and the
   testimony of the mother of boy No. 3 as to the "original
   interval" are in direct conflict.

In the letter to the boy, the genuineness of which Mr. Leadbeater
   acknowledges, he writes :

"There may be this much reason in what he [the Doctor] says, that
   while you are not quite well we should spend no force that can
   be avoided. You will remember that when we met in --- I
   suggested longer intervals until you were completely recovered."

It is to be noted that this "suggestion" was made because the boy
   was ill. The "original" interval to which the mother refers was
   advised prior to this meeting.

The most striking point in Mrs. Besant's plea is her appeal for
   "utter confidence" in Mr. Leadbeater's statements and denials;
   frequently she says with regard to evidence "it is not true that
. . . ," when this simply means "Mr. Leadbeater says
   it is not true." Mr. Leadbeater is always to be believed no
   matter what the testimony against him of the boys and mothers
   (or even of his own letters) may be, for Mrs. Besant has "utter
   confidence in his candour."

But one of the main points against Mr. Leadbeater is that he taught
   these practices without the knowledge of the parents and bound
   the boys to secrecy, as has been fully admitted by himself. Mrs.
   Besant writes, in her Simla letter of June 9, 1906:

"Nothing can excuse giving to young boys instructions on sexual
   matters to be kept from their parents, the rightful protectors
   of their children."

Why then, if Mr. Leadbeater is so candid with Mrs.  Besant, did he
   not breathe a word to her of his teaching before he was
   detected? For in the same letter Mrs. Besant writes:

"This was the first time I had heard of such a method of meeting
   the sexual difficulty let alone Mr. Leadbeater's recommendation
   of it. I had always regarded self-abuse as one of the lowest
   forms of vice, and a thing universally reprobated by decent
   people. To me it was not arguable."

Now we are not labouring this point as to precisely "daily"
   practice, but Mrs. Besant knows, as we know, that the cipher
   letter says, "twice a week is permissible," preceded and
   followed by words that make it impossible to put a curative
   construction upon the "advice." How then does Mrs. Besant deal
   with this most important document, which, unfortunately, came
   into the hands of the American Executive only a day before the
   meeting of the Advisory Committee in London, too late to be
   included in the evidence? No contemptuous words can brush aside
   this document.

The Cipher Letter.

The "fragment of paper" is sufficient to accommodate not a note
   only but a letter of 229 words, beginning with "My own darling
   boy," and ending with " Thousand kisses darling" (in cipher). It
   is true that the first half of this letter refers to a psychic
   experience, but the second, of equal length, begins with the
   words "Turning to other matters," and these matters are sexual;
   it is in the latter part that the Cipher sentences occur, and it
   is in the body of the cipher, towards the end, that the sentence
   referred to by Mrs. Besant ("glad sensation is so pleasant") is
   found.

If, as Mrs. Besant says (p. 11), the boy replied to the letter
   (though his reply was not sent), the letter can hardly be a
   forgery to "go with the Coulomb and Pigott letters." If the boy
   himself did not understand the sentence in the sense implied, as
   Mrs. Besant says - the mother (in a covering letter addressed to
   one of the members of the Investigating Committee in America)
   says she so understands it, and makes it an additional ground of
   complaint. As the letter stands it is impossible to read the
   sentence otherwise than as applying to its immediate context.
   It could not apply to the psychic experience, for that was not
   of a pleasant nature.

Mrs. Besant, however, says that Mr. Leadbeater states he does not
   "recognise it [the letter] in its present form." Who then has
   changed the "form" of the letter - the boy or the mother?  And
   if so, what possible purpose could be served thereby?  Will Mr.
   Leadbeater himself venture to assert that the letter or any part
   of it is a forgery?

But even if the sentence in question were entirely eliminated,
   there is that in the rest of the letter which calls for the most
   searching inquiry, and its genuineness is further corroborated
   by the identity of its very peculiar phrasing with that of the
   other letter in evidence which Mr. Leadbeater has acknowledged
   as his.

It is, therefore, impossible to join Mrs. Besant in letting it "go
   with the Coulomb and Pigott letters."

As to this document we agree with Miss Ward in her recent circular
   that:

"If it is genuine it settles for us [me] the whole question of Mr.
   Leadbeater's attitude: if it is not genuine it is a piece of
   inconceivable wickedness, which leaves Mr. Leadbeater grossly
   wronged and of which the perpetrator should, by every code of
   honour and justice, be unveiled and punished."

It is remarkable that Dr. van Hook himself has nowhere published
   this "repudiation," but from a copy of a letter written by him
   to Mr. Whyte, which Mrs. Besant has had printed in "Theosophy in
   India" (Sept., 1908], we find that Dr. van Hook expressly states
   that "in the Letters published over his [my] signature" the
   "general problem" has not been dealt with, but only the
   "specific question" of Mr. Leadbeater's "solution" of it.

We may here point out that it is not the fact that the Convention
   had before it only a "garbled account," as Mrs. Besant says (p.
   13), of Dr. van Hook's utterances; every sentence that could he
   used to persuade the Convention that Dr. van Hook did not mean
   what he wrote, was insisted on by Dr. van Hook's and Mr.
   Leadbeater's supporters; his paragraphs were read repeatedly in
   full, and the sentences Mrs. Besant quotes (p. 12) were
   especially insisted on.

In his Open Letter (Addendum, May 5) Dr. van Hook speaks of nothing
   else but Mr. Leadbeater's teaching and method and "solution" of
   the problem. And if the following paragraphs in it do not refer
   to Mr. Leadbeater's "solution," to his "system," to the blessing
   he is conferring by it, then to what on earth do they refer?
   Dr. van Hook's "repudiation" of his own plain meaning simply
   makes nonsense of his whole contention. Dr. van Hook (or, if he
   prefers it, his "Master") writes:

"Hence the "crime" or "wrong" of teaching the boys the practice
   alluded to was no crime or wrong at all, but only the advice of
   a wise teacher who foresaw an almost limitless period of
   suffering for his charge if the solution for his difficulties
   usually offered by the World were adopted and relief obtained by
   an associated instead of by an individual and personal act.

"The introduction of this question into the thought of the
   Theosophical World is but the precursor of its introduction into
   the thought of the outer World. Mr Leadbeater has been the one
   to bear the persecution and martyrdom of its introduction. The
   solution of the question can only be reached by those who study
   it from the Theosophic standpoint, admitting the validity of our
   teachings in regard to thoughts and their relations to acts.
   Hence the service of Theosophy to the world in this respect will
   be of the most far-reaching consequence, extending into the
   remote future of the progress of Man.

"No mistake was made by Mr. Leadbeater in the nature of the advice
   he gave his boys. No mistake was made in the way he gave it. Nor
   did he make any mistake in the just estimation of the
   consequences of any other solution of the terrible problem which
   was presented to him.

"If any mistake was made it was a mistake of judgment in trusting
   too much to the confidence of the parents of the boys who, he
   thought, knew and loved him so well that they would accept his
   judgment on matters about which ordinary people have little or
   no knowledge and about which he, by the nature of his occult
   training, had a full comprehension.

"Betrayal of confidence on the part of some parents of the boys
   resulted in the scandal which brought this problem to the
   attention of Theosophists as a preliminary to its introduction
   to the world. Woe to those who violated their vows in making
   disclosures in this case. All honor to those parents who,
   braving the opinion of the World, have boldly set themselves
   against the current of the World's prejudice and have avowed
   themselves and their sons under undying obligation to the great
   teacher who aided their sons in overcoming difficulties which
   without his aid would not only have been insuperable in this
   life but would have led them into almost inconceivable
   complications in future lives."

If this does not mean the introduction into the thought of the
   Theosophical Society, and thus into the thought of the outer
   world, of Mr.Leadbeater's "solution" of the problem, what can it
   possibly mean?  Mr. Leadbeater's "martyrdom" is not because of
   his introducing the general sex problem with regard to young
   people; that has been introduced into the thought of the world
   for many many centuries. It is because of his "solution" of it
   that Dr. van Hook calls on us to exalt Mr. Leadbeater to the
   highest pinnacle of honour, for he gives "all honour" to the
   parents who entrust their children to Mr. Leadbeater to receive
   such teaching, and who avow their undying obligation for this
   high favour!

Against the introduction of this "solution" of the sex problem into
   the "thought of the Theosophical world" and against Dr. van
   Hook's glorification of it, we protest with all our energy; we
   characterise the teaching of it in any case as a "corrupting
   practice" and "wholly evil," no matter who gives it, not
   excepting occultists and psychics; and we call for the public
   repudiation of it by the man who has confessed to teaching it
   practically, before he is invited to return in triumph as a
   "wise teacher" to the Theosophical Society.

The Main Issue Evaded.

As to the main issue, then, Mrs. Besant evades it when she says (p.
   14):

"The Theosophical Society, as a whole, cannot be committed to any
   special solution of this [the sex] problem, and its members must
   be left free."

This we have not asked; what we do ask our fellow-members to do, is
   to condemn one special and corrupting practice as a solution of
   the problem. Advice to break off gradually this corrupting habit
   when once it had been contracted, is not the ground of our
   protest. It is the teaching of this thing to men who have never
   practised it, and to boys and children who have never heard of
   it even, against which we protest.

The Real Cause of the Present Dissension.

Mrs. Besant says (p. 15) that Mr. Leadbeater:

"resigned two and a half years ago in the vain attempt to save the
   Society from this dissension."

As to a magnanimous resignation there was little choice; the
   wording of the unanimous resolution of the Committee shows that
   clearly enough.

There was, however, only one way in which Mr. Leadbeater could save
   the Society from dissension, as he himself said before the
   Advisory Committee:

"Since this has come forward it would be undesirable that I should
   *appear before the public."* [Italics ours.]

The trouble has not been made by those who accepted Mr.
   Leadbeater's resignation as the natural sequence of his conduct,
   but by those who have persistently forced him into ever greater
   and greater prominence; and although he has once stated that he
   does not seek re-entry, he has lent himself in every way to
   being pushed forward publicly, and has thus aided most
   powerfully in keeping this scandal and this dissension alive in
   the Theosophical Society with ever greater and greater
   intensification. The Letter of the President in answer to our
   earnest appeal will only bring more dissension, and help the
   more to ventilate the unsavoury subject of Mr. Leadbeater's
   "solution" and methods in the Theosophical Society. Under such
   circumstances how can people be invited to join our ranks? It is
   manifestly unfair to allow outsiders to involve themselves in
   such a scandalous state of affairs without warning, and that
   means stating the facts. Just the very people whom we desire to
   welcome will be kept out, and that, too, even with Mrs. Besant's
   Letter alone before them, much more when they come to know the
   whole matter. What folly is this to sacrifice the welfare of the
   Society in the vain attempt to re-establish the public
   reputation of an individual who has lost it on his own
   confession and by his persistent refusal to repudiate his
   pernicious teaching and practice!

Combined Action Necessary.

Already many have left because of the policy pursued by Mr.
   Leadbeater's supporters. In America hundreds, it is said as many
   as a thousand, have gone out in the last two and a half years;
   and here, among a number of other good members, we have lost two
   old General Secretaries and one former Acting General Secretary.
   Why, we ask, should old and valued members, or even the latest
   recruit, be driven out of the Society for the sake of one man,
   who has taught self-abuse to men, boys, and children, and
   refuses to repudiate his corrupting system?

Combined action being now forced upon us, we earnestly appeal to
   our fellow members not to resign individually, but to join us in
   our present protest, and register their names with us; so that
   if still further action is forced upon us we may take it
   together as a united body. We appeal not only to the members of
   our own Section, but also to all members of the Society who
   sympathise with our protest, to give us their support by also
   registering their names.

We would further ask our sympathisers to let our protest he known
   as widely as possible in the Society. For while the President
   has at her disposal not only the official organisation of the
   whole Society but also the good services of a widespread inner
   order, we are dependent on unorganised effort.

True Loyalty.

Finally, Mrs. Besant calls on us to be "loyal" to the Masters, and
   "to Their choice," and "to work for Them." Is it, we ask,
   loyalty to Masters to tolerate and to refuse to condemn the
   teaching of self-abuse?

We say that it is because of our loyalty to all the Masters of
   Morality who have taught the world throughout the ages that we
   protest, and that in so doing we work for Theosophy, and should
   fail in our plain duty were we not to protest. It is the best
   loyalty, therefore, to the Theosophical Society, and also to its
   elected President, no matter how "chosen," to protest, and
   resist the introduction of this teaching into the thought of the
   Theosophical world, and therewith also the reinstatement of Mr.
   Leadbeater in the Society without his full public repudiation of
   this teaching.

We cannot do better than conclude with the following words, quoted
   from the leaflet entitled Occultism and Truth, issued in 1894,
   at the time of the Judge crisis, and signed by H.S.Olcott, A.P.
   Sinnett, Annie Besant, Bertram Keightley, W. Wynn Westcott, E.T.
   Sturdy, and C. W Leadbeater:

"A spurious Occultism dallies with truth and falsehood, and argues
   that deception on the illusory physical plane is consistent with
   purity on the loftier planes on which the Occultist has his true
   life; it speaks contemptuously of "mere worldly morality" - a
   contempt that might be justified if it raised a higher standard,
   but which is out of place when the phrase is used to condone
   acts which the "mere worldly morality" would disdain to
   practise. The doctrine that the end justifies the means has
   proved in the past fruitful of all evil; no means that are
   impure can bring about an end that is good; else were the Good
   Law a dream and Karma mere delusion. From these errors flows an
   influence mischievous to the whole Theosophical Society,
   undermining the stern and rigid morality necessary as a
   foundation for Occultism of the Right Hand Path."

G. R. S. MEAD.
HERBERT BURROWS.
W. KINGSLAND.
EDITH WARD.

16, Selwood Place,
Onslow Gardens,
London, S.W., Nov., 1908.

[Copies of all the documents may be seen by Members of the
   Theosophical Society on application to Mr. Mead or Miss Ward.]

END OF CWL03.TXT

Scanned an uploaded by Alan Bain, June, 1996
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 25 04:23:17 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:23:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, JRC wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
>
> > Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
> 	
> > In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> > sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
> 	

	What an interesting concept? No different from that held by some
fundamental sects which splits humanity into two groups - sinners and
those saved by a belief etc.

	I am very sorry to say that I have run into Theosophists (long time and
held offices) whose actions are worse than that of ordinary unlettered
simple persons I have run into. It is not the fault of Theosophy.


>
> Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
> there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
> arbitrary thought that is.
>
> Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
> almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
> organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
> is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
> miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
> particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
> needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
> actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
> - but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
> elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
> believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
> million for instances) a person's full immersion in
> child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
> lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
> their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
> - is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
> *avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
> but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
> *down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
> *more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
> experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
> they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
> "spirituality"?

> 	Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
> *intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
> discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
> 							Regards, -JRC
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 25 04:34:32 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:34:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
In-Reply-To: <31CF447B.62B0@whanganui.ac.nz>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:

> liesel f. deutsch wrote:
> >
> > Bee,
> >
> > If you'd like an opinion, if you have enough people willing to facilitate or
> > what have you, I'd have some of both. That was the original idea anyway, to
> > have some public meetings & some just for the serious members. How many of
> > each during a month can be decided on by the group.
> >
> > I had all tourists in my study center in Syracuse. Everything went fine as
> > long as I did it, and they could just come & take in whatever I had to
> > offer. That was ok to get started, but then I had a tresurer who didn't
> > collect donations, & a book agent who didn't want to order books, & when 1
> > of them agreed to conduct a program, he didn't prepare anything. So I just
> > stopped the whole thing. It's ok to give a side show to attract people I
> > think, but then a study center is supposed to promote serious study as well.
> >
> > Liesel
>
> Seeing them as tourists sort of gets a handle on the situation and that it's
> ok if they come sightseeing but I used to get so disappointed when these keen
> tourists didn't come back. I used to wonder what we weren't doing right but I
> see now that there isn't a lot to be done until they stop being such
> dedicated tourists. We have a lively study group of 6 going strong so that is
> not bad in such a small Lodge.
> Keep well
> Bee
> > ........................................................................
> >
> > >Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills, in fact it is a set of 6, that was
> > >done at the annual Queens Birthday Weekend 3 day seminars that are held in
> > >Auckland. This one was 3 years ago and I couldn't go that time. The whole 3
> > >days were called Guidelines for the Spiritual Life and the tape was The
> > >Pilgrim Path, Preparing for the Journey, tape 1.
> > >In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> > >sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims. She then invited definitions of each
> > >from the audience and some interesting ideas were presented. Tourists come
> > >and look around and want to be entertained and expect to get their money's
> > >worth whereas a Pilgrim comes to seek a way and is focussed on that. There
> > >were many other examples but at the end she said that we should be careful
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >not to turn our Lodges into Tourist Attractions in our zeal to share our
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >wisdom. We need to preserve a place for the Pilgrim who's road is hard enough
> > >as it is. She hit a cord within me as I have been thinking along the Tourist
> > >Attraction notion to try to increase our membership but now maybe some real
> > >quality stuff for the Pilgrims already within our Lodge may be wiser and more
> > >profitable for us all.
> > >Interesting stuff.

	Most of us are fortunate in being exposed to Theosophy and I as a
Theosophist want each and every human being an opportunity to get exposed
to Theosophy. How much they are able to understand and use is something
that is up to the individual. Moreover, how can I or any one judge any
one as how they are going to respond to Theosophy when they are exposed
to it. As an example, I try to discuss some of the Theosophical
principles as well as apply them to strangers and sometimes they are very
responsive.

	It is the kind discouraging tourist approach that may be at the
root of the weakened state of many Lodges and Branches in the USA.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss, "a full time tourist"



From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Jun 25 05:06:54 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:06:54 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CF73EE.385E@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

JRC wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
>
> > Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
>         
> > In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> > sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
>         
>
> Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
> there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
> arbitrary thought that is.
>
> Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
> almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
> organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
> is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
> miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
> particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
> needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
> actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
> - but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
> elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
> believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
> million for instances) a person's full immersion in
> child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
> lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
> their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
> - is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
> *avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
> but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
> *down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
> *more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
> experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
> they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
> "spirituality"?
>         Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
> *intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
> discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
>                                                         Regards, -JRCPhew, that is practically a huge punch on the nose coming out of my computer.
Nobody is doing all those terrible things you say, that is purely a surface
maya or an aspect of the diversity of life being discussed. Of course
everyone is a pilgrim in the becoming, some have just decided to become a bit
sooner than others but there is no need to expect pilgrims on the path to
apologise for themselves to the yet-to-become, because they have chosen to
get on with it, rather than play for a bit longer. Diversity is the name of
the game in this physical plane and this is the plane referred to.
Universality is the underlying substance of all things but it does not mean
equality of all on this plane.
Here is what the post from Stan Treloar said in the recent articles posted
on here.
 "It is the
 intention of the Deity of our system that each of us
 shall find our way back to Him, the Source, by our own
 differing way. This is His Plan, and by the diversity He
 becomes perfected in a most broad way. Were it
 otherwise, there would be no need for Him to have
 created so many Monads. Why have a thousand or million
 people (read Souls or Monads) treading identical paths,
 having identical experiences, when to accomplish this,
 only one Monad would be needed, not a million."
And so we have people on all sorts of paths or still trying to discover which
one they wish to go on or not ready to get on a path yet but we may discuss
these differing choices of people without being accused of arrogance and so
rudely told that such discussions are beyond the pale. I take people as I
find them and if some want to tour around and check their options that's fine
by me but I am going to pretend to them or myself that they are doing
anything else. I find people who set themselves up as the protectors of the
rights of others to be just as arrogant because I think people can look after
themselves and are quite capable of dealing with arrogant theosophists
without the help of some who prefer the lowest common denominator in case we
offend anyone. When I don the tourist mode I may go to America for a cruise
around, a holiday, a looksee how the other half lives but I don't intend to
live there just because I am having a visit and seem fascinated with what I
see. In reincarnation it can be just the same. Some have elected or karma has
chosen for them to return this time as a tourist for reasons that we know
nothing off yet they may have begun their pilgrimage in prior lives. Who's to
know!!!! So if we do not acknowledge there is such a thing as tourists or
pilgrims in this physical plane we deny their truth to be what they wish to
be and after all what ever words we may use as descriptive of telling our
story, those words never hold the true meaning of what we wish to say.
Brotherhood is the ideal but that doesn't mean to say we cannot speak about
and acknowledge that it is not a fact in physical life yet and becoming
over-emotional over this fact does not change it. It is what we strive for
but if we were able to fully live like that, I guess we would not be here
discussing it.
Bee

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 07:49:47 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:49:47 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625074947.006b6ad4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim

At 11:31 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
>
>> Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
>	
>> In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
>> sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
>	
>
>Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
>there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
>arbitrary thought that is.

Hooray for YOU! That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch! I agree
with everything below as well.
alexis
>
>Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
>almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
>organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
>is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
>miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
>particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
>needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
>actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
>- but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
>elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
>believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
>million for instances) a person's full immersion in
>child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
>lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
>their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
>- is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
>*avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
>but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
>*down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
>*more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
>experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
>they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
>"spirituality"?
>	Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
>*intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
>discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
>							Regards, -JRC
>
>

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Jun 25 07:09:20 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:09:20 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CF90A0.38F0@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
References: <2.2.32.19960625074947.006b6ad4@pop.slip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>
> At 11:31 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
> >       
> >> In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> >> sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
> >       
> >
> >Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
> >there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
> >arbitrary thought that is.
>
> Hooray for YOU! That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch! I agree
> with everything below as well.
> alexis

And so are you. There is no need for this sort of rudeness and this is
theos-buds not theos-l so I am not replying to any more of this sort of
'discussion'.
Bee
> >
> >Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
> >almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
> >organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
> >is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
> >miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
> >particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
> >needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
> >actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
> >- but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
> >elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
> >believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
> >million for instances) a person's full immersion in
> >child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
> >lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
> >their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
> >- is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
> >*avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
> >but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
> >*down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
> >*more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
> >experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
> >they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
> >"spirituality"?
> >       Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
> >*intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
> >discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
> >                                                       Regards, -JRC
> >
> >

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Jun 25 07:20:10 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:20:10 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31CF932A.1D63@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

m.k. ramadoss wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, JRC wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
> >       
> > > In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> > > sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
> >       
>
>         What an interesting concept? No different from that held by some
> fundamental sects which splits humanity into two groups - sinners and
> those saved by a belief etc.

I am sorry you see it that way, it wasn't how it was intended to be taken.
There was no mention about sinners or the saved that is your interpretation
of it. The tourist idea is only a way of talking about people who have not
made up their minds where they want to hang out or if they indeed want to
hang out anywhere as in relation to the people who have made a choice of some
sort in the direction of the spiritual whatever that spiritual idea may be.
It is a light hearted look at the situation.
I am sorry I even mentioned it and I will not make the same mistake again as
I forgot this list goes spare as soon as any name from the establishment is
mentioned. It is still real heavy round here.
See you round sometime.
Bee
>
>         I am very sorry to say that I have run into Theosophists (long time and
> held offices) whose actions are worse than that of ordinary unlettered
> simple persons I have run into. It is not the fault of Theosophy.
>
> >
> > Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
> > there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
> > arbitrary thought that is.
> >
> > Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
> > almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
> > organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
> > is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
> > miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
> > particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
> > needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
> > actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
> > - but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
> > elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
> > believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
> > million for instances) a person's full immersion in
> > child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
> > lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
> > their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
> > - is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
> > *avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
> > but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
> > *down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
> > *more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
> > experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
> > they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
> > "spirituality"?
>
> >       Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
> > *intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
> > discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
> >                                                       Regards, -JRC
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________
>     Peace to all living beings.
>
>     M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 25 10:02:51 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 05:02:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim
In-Reply-To: <31CF932A.1D63@whanganui.ac.nz>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Bee:
I hope I did not misunderstand the intent of what Joy Mills tried to say.
In this context, there is also a related issue. It is the issue of
members only meeting vs meeting open to all. There is a honest difference
of opinion here. But the problem some of us see is that most meetings end
up being members only. This may be contributory to the lack of growth in
lodges in terms of new members. Of course there are those who think
quality is important more than quantity. But many lodges in this part of
the country are not growing in terms of the membership. I am bringing
this because of the various related issues that I am aware of.

...Ramadoss


On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:

> m.k. ramadoss wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, JRC wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
> > >       
> > > > In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
> > > > sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
> > >       
> >
> >         What an interesting concept? No different from that held by some
> > fundamental sects which splits humanity into two groups - sinners and
> > those saved by a belief etc.
>
> I am sorry you see it that way, it wasn't how it was intended to be taken.
> There was no mention about sinners or the saved that is your interpretation
> of it. The tourist idea is only a way of talking about people who have not
> made up their minds where they want to hang out or if they indeed want to
> hang out anywhere as in relation to the people who have made a choice of some
> sort in the direction of the spiritual whatever that spiritual idea may be.
> It is a light hearted look at the situation.
> I am sorry I even mentioned it and I will not make the same mistake again as
> I forgot this list goes spare as soon as any name from the establishment is
> mentioned. It is still real heavy round here.
> See you round sometime.
> Bee
> >
> >         I am very sorry to say that I have run into Theosophists (long time and
> > held offices) whose actions are worse than that of ordinary unlettered
> > simple persons I have run into. It is not the fault of Theosophy.
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
> > > there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
> > > arbitrary thought that is.
> > >
> > > Joy Mills and the "Tourist/Pilgrim" differentiation stikes me as being
> > > almost a perfect articulation of precisely what is wrong with modern
> > > organized Theosophy. What utter arrogance. As though *everyone* incarnate
> > > is not a "Pilgrim". Is theosophy *actually* going to hold that that
> > > miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
> > > particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
> > > needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
> > > actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all
> > > - but still be following the *path* every bit as fully as the studious
> > > elite? Just who the hell is *anyone* to judge the path of another? If one
> > > believes in re-incarnation ... is it not fully possible that (as one of a
> > > million for instances) a person's full immersion in
> > > child-raising, or business, or farming, may be *fully* in line with the
> > > lessons encoded in them for that incarnation, while another who has spent
> > > their life studying "occult" philosophy is actually well *off* their path
> > > - is actually hiding in it as one hides in a cave ... and hence
> > > *avoiding* "the path"? Is not someone who sits back ... not engaging life
> > > but drifting off into states of imagined "wisdom" - from whence they look
> > > *down* upon the vast majority of the human kingdom - is not such a person
> > > *more* of a "tourist" than one who engages in the full measure of life -
> > > experiences fully whatever ranges of experience is appropriate for where
> > > they are on their road ... even if they never speak a word of
> > > "spirituality"?
> >
> > >       Tell me ... how does the notion of "pilgrim/tourist" fit into the
> > > *intent of the First Object*? I would just love to hear Joy Mills
> > > discourse on what precisely she believes the word "Universal" actually means.
> > >                                                       Regards, -JRC
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________
> >     Peace to all living beings.
> >
> >     M K Ramadoss
>
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 25 10:42:47 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:42:47 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606251040.FAA10651@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Re: Who likes to discuss core teachings? - seven jewels essay - long

Here is a message which may interest many in the list.

.	...Ramadoss

In alt.theosophy, Martin Euser  wrote:

>Hi Y'all,

>seeing that traffic is low and number of discussions near to zero,
>I take the liberty of posting an article about the core doctrines of theosophy.
>Note that the following essay is introductory in nature.
>It does, however, provide ample food for thought, I think.
>I hope that you will find it interesting and that it stimulates discussion,
>with arguments pro or contra these doctrines (principles).

>Martin


>Here follows the essay:
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


>
>   THEOSOPHY BASICS I
>
>  "Science + Religion = Theosophy"

>   Martin Euser (euser@euronet.nl) 16 Oct 1994 writes:
>
>   Introduction

>   Did you ever wonder why there is such a big gap between science and
>   religion? Did you ever see a possibility of bridging this gap?
>
>   As a scientist and psychologist I can clearly see the narrow limits to
>   which science has confined itself. As regards religions, most of them
>   have big trouble to present a clear, consistent philosophy of life.
>   Neither of them can answer urgent ethical questions satisfactorily.
>
>   So we face the strange situation of science, claiming certain theories
>   to be a fact of life, while religion claims other visions to be true.
>
>   Now, common-sense-logic demands that there is one truth; at least we
>   cannot embrace two essentially different opinions about life and
>   nature.
>
>   In fact there is an old philosophy called Wisdom-Religion that claims
>   just to bridge this gap. Nowadays this philosophy is called Theosophy,
>   brought to the West by H.P. Blavatsky under guidance and inspiration
>   of her teachers (the Masters of Wisdom and Compassion). This will be
>   the subject of this document. At this place it will be proper to state
>   that this is not just a fancy philosophy, but, on the contrary, a
>   grand system of truths based on the spiritual visions of thousands of
>   wise men, prophets and great founders of religions through the ages.
>   This philosophy can and should be tested by all serious searchers for
>   truth. Theosophy gives some guidelines how this should be done. At the
>   end of this document this will become clearer (if not, put your
>   questions and I will discuss it). It is most certainly a practical
>   philosophy of life, what will become apparent if you apply its
>   principles to daily life.
>
>   The gap, spoken of above, has not always been there. It has grown
>   gradually, as science opposed itself to dogmatic theology.
>   Nowadays science is completely materialistic in its views.
>   Even consciousness is reduced to materialistic processes.
>   But we can already notice the vague contours of a new,
>   less materialistic science that incorporates the
>   paradigm of wholeness or the essential connectedness of all beings.
>   David Bohm was one of the pioneers in this area.
>
>   Paul Feyerabend has shown that scientific models are comparable to the
>   models of nature, pictured in the old myths of humanity. This should
>   make the sometimes arrogant people of science a little more humble.
>   They just have too many pretensions. Plato would say that
>   materialistic science can never arrive at truth, because it wholly
>   depends on what our senses tell us about the world. Instead we should
>   develop our inner sense of understanding to such a degree that we can
>   perceive the causes behind all visible phenomena. Our outer senses are
>   just a help for living on this outer plane of life.
>
>   Theosophy closes the gap between science and religion by providing the
>   knowledge of the principles of nature which can be recognized by both
>   religion and science, if properly investigated. In essence, Theosophy
>   is the core of all great religions and grand philosophies (such as
>   from Plato and Pythagoras). In its religious aspect it tells us what
>   the goal of all life is; in its philosophical aspect why things are as
>   they are. In its scientific aspect it tells us how nature works. These
>   three aspects are all interconnected and should never be seperated,
>   because seperation causes a real loss of understanding. Seperation
>   also causes science to lose its ethical basis, which is just what has
>   happened during the last centuries.
>
>   Knowledge of (esoteric) science gives tremendous responsibilities.
>   Abuse by selfish minds can cause severe disasters. That's why this
>   kind of knowledge is severely restricted from being given to humanity.
>   Of course, sometimes dangerous knowledge is discovered by scientists
>   themselves, like the secrets of nuclear energy. It has created a real
>   threat to the safety of mankind.
>
>   Well, you might ask, what knowledge is given to this world? This is
>   the subject of the next section:
>
>THE SEVEN JEWELS OF WISDOM

>   Theosophy gives an outline of universal principles, the operations of
>   which can be recognized by everybody with an open mind. Recognition of
>   these principles is possible through gradual development of the
>   faculty of understanding (by unselfish service to mankind combined
>   with esoteric study). All these principles can be found in the
>   literature of many religions, especially the mystical sections, e.g.
>   Sufism, Gnosis, ancient Kabbalah, certain parts of Buddhism,
>   Hindoeism, etc, as well in old myths.
>
>   The most important principles or truths are called:

>   "The seven jewels of wisdom".
>
>   Together, these jewels give a sublime, practical system of ethics,
>   incorporating the idea of Universal Brotherhood (the essential
>   connectedness of all beings) to be discussed more fully in a later
>   cycle of this document. These jewels can be used to build a system of
>   science, which is based on consciousness as primary factor.
>
>First Jewel

>   The first jewel concerns the doctrine of reincarnation or
>   reimbodiment.
>
>   Theosophy proceeds from a spiritual point of view. It says that
>   consciousness is prior to form or manifestation. Consciousness
>   imbodies itself periodically in a suitable form. Socrates talks about
>   this in Plato's Phaedo.
>
>   This doctrine really is the about the law of cycles. All processes in
>   nature are of a cyclic nature. There are literally hundreds of
>   examples in nature that substantiate this law. Some more examples:

>     * the seasons in nature
>     * growth of seeds, fruition, decay, death and rebirth of new seeds
>     * fever
>     * revolution of planets around the sun
>     * civilizations
>     * valencies in the periodic system of chemical elements
>     * processes of thought (a thought is born, can grow and can die..)
>       This particular example will be explained more fully in a new
>       cycle of this document, because of its special importance in
>       getting control of your life.
>
>
>
>   What looks like an unconnected bunch of examples, is in reality
>   related to each other by a process called: the analogical workings of
>   nature.
>
>Second Jewel

>   The second jewel is the old doctrine of Karma (law of cause and
>   effect) which is about the restoration of harmony after disturbances.
>
>   This law states that every action produces a reaction that is in
>   accord with the action. This law is active on all planes of being:
>   physical, psychologically and spiritually. The Christian bible has the
>   proverb: 'As ye sow, so ye shall reap', which is exactly the same
>   idea.
>
>   Karma is the universal law of justice, perceptible to the mind's eye
>   (cf. Plato). There is no other logical consistent explanation for the
>   very great differences between people than provided by this jewel of
>   wisdom and the twin doctrine of reincarnation. It also is the most
>   dificult principle to grasp, because of its endless ramifications and
>   applications to all aspects of life.
>
>   Those who believe in blind chance may do so, but they are really
>   incapable of explaining many phenomena like telepathy,
>   clairvoyance,etc. Also, they can never explain fully how it is that a
>   single cell develops into a human body. Theosophy can explain these
>   phenomena and has done so for a long time. Together these first two
>   jewels can explain many questions we have about life. This will be
>   elaborated upon in a new cycle of this document, also depending on
>   your suggestions and questions.
>
>Third Jewel

>   The third jewel concerns the doctrine of hierarchies.
>
>   This principle of nature is not well-known. Yet Plato and Pythagoras
>   taught it in their academies. They stated the hierarchical structure
>   of nature to be a fact. Indeed, we can observe some remarkable
>   examples in nature and elsewhere that point clearly in this direction:
>
>
>     * Our body is organized in a most hierarchical fashion. It is
>       composed of organs, which are itself composed of tissues, which
>       are composed of cells, which are in its turn composed of certain
>       structures,etc.
>
>     * The many kingdoms of nature have a certain hierarchical
>       relationship which can only be mentioned briefly here. The mineral
>       kingdom can said to have a relation to the human body. The plant
>       kingdom uses minerals in its chemical, physiological processes.
>       The animal kingdom uses the mineral and plant kingdoms The human
>       kingdom uses or better misuses all kingdoms below it.
>
>       There are other kingdoms which cannot be elaborated upon now, but
>       may be briefly mentioned. Above the human kingdom there are divine
>       kingdoms (why would the human race be the most evolved species in
>       the universe? It isn't.)
>
>     * In man himself there is most certainly a hierarchy of beings
>
>       For simplicity I only mention some:
>
>          + the mineral and plant parts in man [bones, resp. hairs]
>          + the animal part in man
>          + the thinking part in man
>          + the inspirative part in man
>
>   This will probably raise some questions. In another cycle of this
>   document I plan to treat more fully of these parts. Mark that these
>   ideas were well known among many of the ancient peoples. On Hawaii we
>   can find the Huna-religion which just treats of the same ideas as
>   found in this example.
>
>   Societies have inherently such a structure. There is a government
>   (which does a good or bad job..), there are states, counties, towns,
>   families and individuals.
>
>   Because intellectual knowledge is higher valued than real wisdom, we
>   see the deplorable picture of governments that are not able to really
>   help their people. The accumulated wisdom of all ages is available tho
>   those who want to listen and think it over..
>
>Fourth Jewel

>   The fourth jewel is the principle of the unique characteristic of
>   every being and class of beings. This is a rather abstract principle
>   to grasp.
>
>   The idea behind this principle is that every being, consciousness,
>   manifests itself in just that form that is in accordance with the
>   developed qualities of the reimbodying consciousness. Human
>   consciousness takes a human form (body), animal consciousness
>   reimbodies into an animal, etc. More specifically stated, a
>   horse-consciousness becomes a horse; a rose-consciousness becomes a
>   rose, etc.
>
>   This brings up the question of heredity. Materialistic science tells
>   us that the cause for a rose-seed developing into a rose lies in its
>   genes. Well, to be sure, heredity exists, but it is only a secondary
>   phenomenon. We can ask a question: what are the causes for a certain
>   pattern of genes to exist? This question can never be answered by
>   science as it is now. Theosophy gives some general clues when we
>   combine the seven jewels together. At this point I should point out
>   that there are many questions of detail which require a life-long
>   study and research. At the end of this document I will provide some
>   keys to be used in this kind of research.
>
>   It should be clear by now that this principle reverses the point of
>   vision regarding heredity: heredity is not a cause for our character,
>   but just the result of our character that we built during ages and
>   ages. Heredity confines itself to the physical aspect of man.
>
>   (to be continued)
>
>Fifth Jewel

>   The fifth jewel of wisdom concerns the principle of progressive
>   evolution.
>
>   Now, evolution as it is understood by Darwin and his followers
>   concerns itself with the transformation of forms and the survival of
>   the fittest.
>
>   Theosophy regards these processes as secondary processes and states
>   clearly that consciousness is the primary factor in evolution.
>   Moreover, evolution means literally, to e-volve, to manifest certain
>   qualities (of consciousness in matter!). No phenomenon is possible
>   without an active, intelligent force. (Are you still there?) Each
>   phenomenon is evolved from Universal Life-Matter in a long line of
>   differentiations. At the same time it is Life, involved in Matter. So,
>   we have two concurrent processes, instead of just an empty
>   transformation of forms as the Darwinists will have us believe.
>
>   Now, regarding the term progressive evolution, it is stated that there
>   is a gradual development of qualities of conscience, as can be seen in
>   the different kingdoms of life. Plants are more evolved than minerals.
>   Animals are more evolved than plants, men are more evolved than
>   animals (some people may think differently..). Of course, we see men
>   often behave like animals (this is a part of our nature) but there are
>   also many examples of unselfish people who sacrifice their own life
>   for others.
>
>   Man has evolved the thinking faculty to some degree, animals have this
>   faculty in a latent condition.
>
>   Progressive evolution states that beings in a certain kingdom develop
>   their consciousness by experience in this world, they reincarnate in
>   the same kingdom until they have reached the limit of possible
>   experiences in this kingdom. Then these beings can enter the next
>   higher kingdom, after a certain period. In this new kingdom they can
>   evolve higher aspects of consciousness. This fifth jewel is clearly
>   connected with the third one, hierarchies, and the first one,
>   reincarnation.
>
>   In fact all these jewels are indissolubly interconnected.
>
>   For men, it is taught, there are still a lot of aspects of
>   consciousness that can be developed. To give two important examples:
>   the faculty of Understanding (discernment) and the faculty of
>   Inspiration (consciousness of the essential unity of all beings). This
>   is our great task. Nowadays we mostly let control our lives by our
>   lower desires and impulses. Instead, we can use the faculties of
>   Imagination and Will to create a powerful image of Brotherhood,
>   cooperation and peace. This fascinating subject will be elaborated in
>   another session. It is really a most effective way of changing the
>   mental atmosphere on this planet. Plato says: 'Ideas rule the world',
>   and he is right. Of course, we should also perform the necessary
>   actions to help realise our ideals.
>
>   All the great Teachers of humanity point out the way out of human
>   misery . This is further elucidated in the next two jewels.
>
>Sixth Jewel

>   The sixth jewel of wisdom states that: duality is the basis for all
>   manifestations
>
>   Krishna speaks about the 'pairs of opposites' in the Bhagavad Gita.
>   Mind and Matter are the two poles of manifestation. The interaction of
>   these two poles causes all progress and regress. This, again, is a
>   most profound subject with profound philosophical implications.
>
>   We can choose between selfish action or selfless service for the
>   benefit of the whole. Those who act selfishly confine their
>   consciousness to a very narrow area of existence and experience.
>
>   Those who work for the benefit of the world extend their consciousness
>   to higher planes of consciousness. Of course, this is a gradual
>   process. In Buddhism, there is a teaching about the Path of
>   Compassion. Those who work for the benefit of others , who have no
>   feelings of seperateness from others (the greatest heresy in Buddhism)
>   tread this Path ( not for themselves, but for others). They refuse
>   Liberation or Nirvana when faced with the possibility of acquiring
>   this, because they do not want it as long as others suffer in misery.
>   They do not desert the poor orphan humanity. This is the most sublime
>   ethics ever conceived of in the entire history of mankind!
>
>Seventh Jewel

>   The seventh jewel is about knowing the essence of all life.
>
>   What is the origin of all things? How does the One Essence becomes the
>   manifold? These questions are really most fundamental in philosophy.
>   It refers to the Source of all manifestation.
>
>   Is it possible to know the origin of life? Yes, Theosophy answers. In
>   the heart or core of each being Universal Life is to be found. 'Thou
>   Art That', the Upanishads say. Every human being can discover this
>   Divine Spark inside by gradually evolving higher aspects of his
>   consciousness. This will result in a realization of the connectedness
>   of all beings. This realization can be called 'enlightenment' and is
>   really a stepwise, gradual process.
>
>   Mark that evolution is the expression of inner faculties of
>   consciousness. By treading the Path of Compassion, not for one self,
>   but for the whole, one is bound to discover the core or essence of
>   things.
>
>   To be realistic, this will take many reincarnations. Of course, this
>   doesn't matter, because there is no end to evolution..
>
>   The only thing that matters is the right application of the right
>   understanding of the ancient knowledge-wisdom to daily life by using
>   your common-sense.
>
>   Some keys for the scientist-philosopher.
>   ---------------------------------------

>   The main purpose of all that has been said is to demonstrate the
>   existence of a coherent, consistent philosophy of life, which shows us
>   the rationale for ethical behaviour. Who would be so stupid to hurt
>   his fellowmen when he understands that by doing so he is really
>   hurting himself? The essential connectedness of all beings is a
>   central theme in this philosophy.
>
>   The second purpose of this document is to provide some stimulating
>   thoughts for those scientists (or people who are really interested in
>   science) who understand that a synthesis between old religious truths
>   and science is a possibility. Now, I cannot provide a finished,
>   complete system of deductive methods of esoteric science. A lot of
>   building blocks are already provided however by Theosophy.
>
>   An important principle can be found in the statement:
>
>   "nature works along analogical lines". Macrocosmic processes are
>   analogical to microcosmic processes.
>
>   The application of the seven jewels of wisdom is possible by using
>   this masterkey of analogy.
>
>   The Hermetic axiom: "So above, so below" is to be applied in every
>   direction conceivable. A deep study of the third jewel, along with the
>   other jewels of course, will yield surprising results, I think.
>
>   Also a study of old myths and sacred literature will furnish food for
>   deep contemplation. H.P. Blavatsky tells us, in the Secret Doctrine,
>   that seven keys of interpretation must be applied to each symbol and
>   allegory to fully understand what is meant.
>
>   These seven keys are: geometrical, numerical (e.g.,Ancient Kabbalah),
>   physiological (& anthropological), physical-chemical, metaphysical,
>   astronomical (& Ancient astrology, now hardly available), and
>   psychological.
>
>   This is really a master-project, which none can undertake alone.
>   Nevertheless, I hope some daring minds will take up the challenge of
>   synthesizing religion, science and philosophy into one system along
>   the lines sketched. The broad outline of this system is already given
>   to us by Theosophy.
>
>   Science will need to incorporate consciousness as a basic factor into
>   its system, otherwise it will fail to fulfil its real task: helping
>   people to understand how nature really works, thus motivating them to
>   act and think according to the principles of the timeless wisdom
>   hidden in the book of nature; principles which are, to some extent,
>   revealed by Theosophy.
>
>   Martin
>   euser@euronet.nl



________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 18:52:51 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:52:51 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625185251.006c8180@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim

At 04:19 AM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>>
>> At 11:31 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>> >On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Bee Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yesterday I watched a video by Joy Mills,
>> >       
>> >> In it she brought up the concept that the world can be divided into two
>> >> sorts, the Tourists and the Pilgrims.
>> >       
>> >
>> >Actually, there *are* two sorts of people in the world: Those who think
>> >there are two sorts of people, and those who know what a ludicrous and
>> >arbitrary thought that is.
>>
>> Hooray for YOU! That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch! I agree
>> with everything below as well.
>> alexis
>
>And so are you. There is no need for this sort of rudeness and this is
>theos-buds not theos-l so I am not replying to any more of this sort of
>'discussion'.
>Bee

Really? You're really not going to reply? Well that makes the "umteenth"
time you've threatened to get off the board. Did you ever hear Aesop's Fable
of "The boy Who Cried Wolf"? I doubt if anyone takes you seriously in your
threats. As to Joy Mills I've known her since 1973, and because of that, I
can't think of anyone I'd feel happier and more completely justified about
being rude to. I have never seen any indication that she isn't exactly what
I said she is. She is also an opportunist. I also believe she is dishonest
(not fiscally) but ethically and morally. "Pilgrims and Tourists" is just
the sort of thing she's been bringing to the fore in all the years I have
known her. It is everything that's wrong with Theosophy". It's smug,
self-righteous, self-satisfied. exclusionary and arrogant. It's why the
society is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, it's why people who are
members are choosing the "Member-at-Large" option. It's why Lodges and
Sections who choose to engage in studies which are of interest to them get
expelled from the Society.

You recently wondered how many of us who are complaining about the Society
were members of Lodges, smugly comparing Members-at-Large with your own
superlative condition as Lodge president. Well I've been a Lodge President
too, and a Vice President, and a Federation Vice President, and once a
Candidate for President of a Federation. I am not a member of a Lodge right
now because while there are three lodges in the Bay Area, I just don't have
the time to participate an any meaningful way and my partner isn't
interested and so I don't join things in which he's not interested. In the
Lodges here all of the people are very nice, and damn few of the are smug
and self-satisfied, but then I guess all three are endangered because they
have diverse interests.

It must be wonderful to be as pleased with yourself as you are.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 18:56:23 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:56:23 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625185623.006b5fb8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Tourist or Pilgrim

At 04:27 AM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>See you round sometime.
>Bee
>>
>Oh I hope not!

alexis

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Jun 25 18:37:38 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:37:38 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31D031F2.379E@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: To John Mead
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear John,
I left theos-l some weeks ago and now I ask you publicly to please remove me
from the other 3 periphery lists as I will no longer accept the type of
theosophy being touted on these lists.
The loud minority speak about brotherhood out of one corner of their mouths
and out of the other corner, abuse the shit out of anyone doesn't follow
their sort of theosophy. I will not follow anyones party-line and it saddens
me to read the hard and fast attitudes here. Over here in NZ we may be
provintial but at least we try to be civil to each other and allow others to
hold their views without browbeating them with our own.
I have hung in here for nigh on a year and the paranoia that is developing to
any mention of Adyar etc is horrifying but abusing them too is unproductive
and a real turn off for ordinary theosophists who are not interested in the
American ideal as pronounced here.

TO ALAN BAIN.
Please do not take this personally, but I wish to be removed from TI
membership too. It is sliding into the big hole the loud minotity are digging
for theosophy on the Internet.

Best wishes to the Silent Majority.
Bee Brown

From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Jun 26 00:07:33 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:07:33 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606260113.VAA22035@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: To:Bee Re: TOurists & PIlgrims

I still come back to what I first said. It makes sense to me that you have
programs for both. The Pilgrim needs to seriously study. The Tourist needs
to find something which will perhaps attract him to serious study. I agree
with Bee's idea that not everyone will be advancing and/or working at the
same level, since we're all different. So you need programs to appeal to a
variety of people.
I do however feel I need to justify closing up my study group. I don't think
that one person doing everything is conducive to having a dynamic group.
When you prepapre a talk, you learn, when you participate in a group your
interest awakens more. My pap feeding the rest of them isn't my idea of what
should be. It doesn't work in the long run.

Liesel

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 06:01:20 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:01:20 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625060120.006c76b4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 01:45 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Alexis: Why,o why do you have to react in such a way? Calling someone
>an idiot is not exactly a sign of good manners, I'd say. Why don't you
>challenge Bjorn to show his superior knowledge to you? Far more polite,
>and MUCH more fun to do, I submit.
>
>
>Martin
>
>
>Martin: I want to get something straight with you. I am not trying to
insult Bjorn, but I really don't care if I do. I wan't calling him an
"idiot" thereby using the word as a pejorative (insult) I said that I was
slowly and reluctantly coming to agree with Chuck's opinion that the man is
an "idiot" or less than intelligent.  I find him an intolerable person, his
messages to me are far more insulting than anything I've said to him.
Basically I don't want to have any discussions with him because I really
think the man is nuts!

Now, you and I disagree almost entirely on most things, but I really enjoy
discussing these things with you. While I feel you're wrong on many (all
right.....most) things, our discussions are interesting and I, at least,
enjoy them. This is equally true with Christopher Allen, he too disagrees
strongly with almost everything I say, and visa versa. But like my present
discussions with you there's no hostility either way and I think that in
time the discussions will be productive if only in that we three will each
be able to make our individual cases more clearly.

But with Bjorn, I really do not see any possibility of "discussion without
hostility". Now, as you all know, I share my life with a large and beautiful
wolf, and I love all Wolves very much, but I am neither so fatuous nor so
insensitive as not to realize that when Bjorn calls me a "wolf" he's not
being complimentary. I have a problem with people who are, or rather, who
claim to be, "good buddies" with "The Master Jesus". Bjorn doesn't like me
because I made statements that invalidated both Elisabeth Clair "Prophet"
and Mr. Ballard, whom I believe to be (in Ballard's case...to have been)
strictly con-artists and phonies. Now I've also said that I have some
problems with GdeP's attitude (racist) and his writings, but I have never
felt him to be a con-artist or a phoney. I just don't agree with much that
he had to say just as I don't agree with much that you have to say.

In any case, I feel no need to engage in "popularity contests" or to win the
"Mr. Congeniality" award. I have an adequate number of good friends who know
me well and like me. On this list and on alt. theosophy I have "work" to do,
and if it gains me people who think I'm some kind of monster, so be it. But
I will tell the truth as I see it.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 06:06:20 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:06:20 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625060620.006c23c8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Teaching theosophy in Lodges/Branches/ Study centers

At 03:18 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Ramadoss writes:
>
>>With the present procedure of putting new lodges on a
>>provisional/probational mode until their activities are
>>"evaluated" by the powers be to see if they are satisfied, what
>>would happen if a group of members, all of them members at
>>large, but meet regularly and carryon any kind of activity they
>>want?
>
>What is the criteria upon which this "evaluation" is made?
>
>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 the "criteria" are pretty obvious. Does the work of the new group
match John Algeo and Radha Burnier's parameters of adherence to "core
Doctrine". I. E. is it sufficiently orthodox? Or do they; "the Masters
forfend", talk about Alice Bailey or Sufism or Zen? If so it's rejection time!

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 06:28:07 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:28:07 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625062807.006d8488@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

At 07:32 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Gertie,
>Ask Kathleen.
>
>Chuck
>
>Chicken!!!!!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 07:19:35 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:19:35 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625071935.006f3c50@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 07:57 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:



Chris: Well done!!! Clearly and carefully stated, and very well thought out.
I cannot disagree with most of it. I have one point I'd like to raise. You
say that "Religion presents a set of moral dogma to live by". Of course this
is true, BUT, that "moral dogma" carries with it an immense burden of
totally unnecessary guilts and fears. Religion uses the fear of death and of
post-mortem retribution as a club to control human beings actions. This I
believe does infinitely more harm than good. And just like the death penalty
it really doesn't dissuade most people from doing things they want to do. It
just makes some of them feel bad about it, and some of them go crazy over it.
>
>Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the Mahatma Letters.
>Perhaps sometime in the near future.
>
>>Until they disappointed Sinnett yes I do believe he came close to
>
>Out of curiousity, how did the Masters dissappoint Sinnett?  I'm afraid I'm
>not very well up on the history or lives any of the early theosophists.  All
>I know of them is based on the books they've written.

Basically "they" didn't do what he wanted them to do, and they "cut him
off", especially after HPB's passing. Sinnett was more of a victim than a
victimizer but his ego was mightily inflated due to his "letters" and then
mightily deflated when they stopped. He then went from medium to medium
trying to re-establish some kind of contact in spite of the fact that in the
"Mahatma Letters" they made it very clear that they would never communicate
via a medium. See how it is?
>
>>worshipping them. As to Leadbeater, as all of his connections with them were
>>in the Astral Plane I don't think any of them are anything but
>>hallucinatory. It's that he encouraged others in this attitude that I
>>disapprove of. Prostration is not respectful, it is self-abasing, and
>>self-abasement is entirely negative. Let's get this totally straight: as far
>>as I see it based on a really in depth study of the matter, Charles Webster
>>Leadbeater was a pathological Liar, he was mentally unstable, and he was a
>>totally immoral man. That makes everything he said extremely suspect.
>>>
>>>>>
>
>What is your belief as far as the various planes of existance go?  Did
>Leadbeater actually encourage others to worship the Masters?  Bear with me
>on my ignorance, as I said earlier, I know very little of these peoples lives.

I have written a book almost as long as Isis in which I discuss my views on
the greater reality. But in general, I don't use the elevator notion of
numbered planes of reality. I see the greater reality as a unified field of
energy, manifesting as intelligence (or visa versa) in which the levels of
reality are determined by the oscillation rates of the sine curves of the
particle carrier waves that form the force-fields that individuate various
entities and things. The only reality of any physical thing is as a field of
individuated energy-intelligence.

Now as to your second question: Yes he did.
>


Chris: Try to get a copy of a book called "Elder Brother" by Gregory
Tillett. It is scholarly and well written and full of citations and
quotations from contemporaries of Leadbeater. If you send a message to Jerry
Hejka-Ekins (jhe@toto.csustan.edu.) He might be able to send you one. He has
a mail-order book business and is a very important theosophist. As to my own
feelings, well Chris I have a very low opinion of a man who uses his
prestige and position to impose himself sexually on boys under the age of
puberty. Understand this: I am NOT complaining because he was homosexual, I
am complaining because he was a child molester.I have a very low opinion on
anyone who is in anyway connected wit the "Order of Saturn" even if it is
only by way of the O.T.O. I strongly disapprove of "black magic" even though
I don;'t believe it has any reality. But people who do practice it, do lots
of harm without the reality. I do not think his visions were fraudulent, I
do not consider Leadbeater to be a phony like elisabeth Clair prophet or
others, but I do believe that his visions were hallucinations in which he
truly and deeply believed. But I think that one only learns to share those
hallucinations with him from his books. His visions of the Adepts were all
very real to him, but they were nonetheless entirely hallucinatory. Adepts
are just people, special people yes, but just people.
>
>Even if he was as you say, I agree that it would make someone cautious to
>follow what says/writes, but I don't believe it should be disregarded solely
>on that purpose.  Crowley's moral behaviour was highly questionable, but
>many of the things he wrote were extremely intelligent and worthwhile
>(although many of them sarcastic and vain too).

Aleister Crowley was an angry and disappointed man. He was rejected by
society early on for his homosexuality and he never forgave society for it.
He was a brilliant and immensely talented man, but his tremendous anger and
his equally tremendous cocaine addiction ruined what could have been a very
productive career. Though I reject almost all of his so-called "Magick", he
had many very intelligent things to say interspersed with an enormous amount
of posturing and play acting.He too belonged to the OTO, but he had sense
enough to create his own OTO and wasn't involved with the Nazis who hated him.
>


>
>I just picked up on this :)  This is the area in which we have our biggest
>divergence in beliefs.

Oh that's for sure!
>
 For me, the S.D. is for the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've
told Martin Euser, once
>>you get past the motto and the three objects, it's almost ALL ridiculous
>>nonsense. My own personal question is beginning to be can the two "types of
>>theosophists", i.e. "process theosophists" and "orthodox Theosophists" ever
>>meaningfully relate on any level? Or is it time for " total separation"?
>>Reaction like Bjorn Roxendol's make me think that no rational relationship
>>is possible. Reactions like yours gives me hope. You and I are at what I
>>guess would be about 85% disgreement and yet our communications remain
>>friendly, that's a good sign
>>>
>
>Now I understand where your coming from and your two definitions of
>theosophy.  I must say, I like them.  I have no doubt as to whether or not
>the two types can relate.  They most certainly can- the question, in my
>mind, is whether it will be a good relation or a bad one.  I can see either
>side getting extremely upset with the other for not holding their own belief
>system yet calling it the same thing.  Personally, I view both types as
>essentially the same.  The end result I believe is the same between the two,
>it's just the rule system that's different
>
>
>>
>>That's a good point! I agree but I think most "meditation" just leads to a
>>sore bottom.
>>>
>
>I would think if there was no activity to the meditation, it could just lead
>to a sore bottom.  The whole idea of meditation is not relaxation (usually),
>it's mind expansion.  I can site personal examples if your interested.
>


>>>

>The point being that even if he was insane, I've learned something
>worthwhile from his material.  And if people are learning things they
>consider worthwhile, his writings are worthwhile.

But did you? If what he said wasn't true, and I am sure it isn't, then what
could you "learn" that was of value?
>
>>

>
>If she was encouraging it, then I'd call her behavior "crazy" too :)  That
>wasn't implicitely stated and I didn't catch the inference.  As far as my
>spelling goes, your right- it's pathetic.  My fingers just seem to fly by
>themselves sometimes   I've tried to take more time in writing this
>email and made it a point to make myself more aware of it in the future.  I
>suppose if I want what I write to be given some consideration I should take
>the same consideration in writing it :)

I think so too. I also make typos. But some of your spelling seems not so
much typo as erroneous. But rest assured you're not alone in the internet.
>
>>>

>>The trouble Chris is this: What most people call "personal spiritual
>>development" I call "spiritual masturbation"!
>>>
>
>I believe that's true on many occassions.  But at least they're trying, that
>in of itself is worthwhile.  Personally, I view any attempt to better
>oneself as a beneficial act.

I can't argue with that.
>

>
>Actually I firmly believe in what I was saying.  I also believe that
>everything happens for a reason, even if we cannot begin to fathom why.  I
>do believe that everything is relative from the universe's perspective- it's
>all part of the same thing.

I don't think the universe cares about what happens on the physical plane,
but we must, we're stuck here.
>

>
>I know right from wrong, but I do believe that each depends on the other.  I
>may not always be able to see why something happens, but I have faith that
>there's a valid reason (good or bad) for it to happen.  Perhaps "eternal
>optimist" would be a better term for me than amoral ;-)

Would that make me an "eternal pessimist"?:-)
>
>
>
>
>Perhaps this is why the idea of the interchangeability of such things is not
>taught exoterically.  When someone sees the Yin and Yang symbols, they don't
>think, "Wow, cool.  Good and bad are interchangeable", they typically just
>realize the dual nature of life- if that.

But you see Chris, I am a monist, I totally deny that there is a dualistic
nature of life or of anything except the natural physical plane dualism we
all experience and love.
>
>
>>Oh that's true, but the way to do that WITHOUT being sophomoric is to ask
>>the other person "What do you mean by......?"
>>>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here...so, What *do* you mean by the above?

I mean that in order to agree on word meanings we each of us have to ask the
other what he means by a word that seems questionable in any way. O.K.?
>


>
>Ok, I didn't understand that you were rejecting it due to who wrote it.
>
>>>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that since you believe CWL
>to be an invalid person to learn from that anything I might have learned
>from him is not worthwhile?  Please expand.

O.K. I too was first interested in theosophy (aside from the factor of being
HPB's cousin) by Leadbeater's writings, and I too learned a lot from them
but it was in the sense of transcending the fairy tales and learning why
Leadbeater was wrong that I learned something. You can too.
>
>>>
>>>Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?
>>
>>I think you already know the answer to your question Because I have
>>adequately demonstrated what I think of CWL and why.
>>
>Yes, you have.
>
>I had to cut some of the paragraphs from this email to make it fit in my
>program's memory.  Apparently my system thinks Alexis and I are getting long
>winded.  You guys don't believe that do you??   Anyway, hope those who
>are following can still follow.
>
>Chris


As one can clearly see from the wreckage, so did I! I got a little message
saying "no room in memory for this text". But I am enjoying this discussion.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 07:22:21 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:22:21 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625072221.006df968@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: filtering and forwarding

At 08:11 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>No need to rehash old problems.  I'm sure I'll develop my own opinions of
>people in due time :)
>
>Sorry for the intrusion.
>
>Chris
>
>
>No need to apologize. I am really enjoying our contact. I may disagree with
you, and sometimes quite strongly, but I assume you realize that I am
beginning to like you.

alexis dolgorukii

From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 25 10:42:47 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:42:47 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606251040.FAA10651@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Re: Who likes to discuss core teachings? - seven jewels essay - long

Here is a message which may interest many in the list.

.	...Ramadoss

In alt.theosophy, Martin Euser  wrote:

>Hi Y'all,

>seeing that traffic is low and number of discussions near to zero,
>I take the liberty of posting an article about the core doctrines of theosophy.
>Note that the following essay is introductory in nature.
>It does, however, provide ample food for thought, I think.
>I hope that you will find it interesting and that it stimulates discussion,
>with arguments pro or contra these doctrines (principles).

>Martin


>Here follows the essay:
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


>
>   THEOSOPHY BASICS I
>
>  "Science + Religion = Theosophy"

>   Martin Euser (euser@euronet.nl) 16 Oct 1994 writes:
>
>   Introduction

>   Did you ever wonder why there is such a big gap between science and
>   religion? Did you ever see a possibility of bridging this gap?
>
>   As a scientist and psychologist I can clearly see the narrow limits to
>   which science has confined itself. As regards religions, most of them
>   have big trouble to present a clear, consistent philosophy of life.
>   Neither of them can answer urgent ethical questions satisfactorily.
>
>   So we face the strange situation of science, claiming certain theories
>   to be a fact of life, while religion claims other visions to be true.
>
>   Now, common-sense-logic demands that there is one truth; at least we
>   cannot embrace two essentially different opinions about life and
>   nature.
>
>   In fact there is an old philosophy called Wisdom-Religion that claims
>   just to bridge this gap. Nowadays this philosophy is called Theosophy,
>   brought to the West by H.P. Blavatsky under guidance and inspiration
>   of her teachers (the Masters of Wisdom and Compassion). This will be
>   the subject of this document. At this place it will be proper to state
>   that this is not just a fancy philosophy, but, on the contrary, a
>   grand system of truths based on the spiritual visions of thousands of
>   wise men, prophets and great founders of religions through the ages.
>   This philosophy can and should be tested by all serious searchers for
>   truth. Theosophy gives some guidelines how this should be done. At the
>   end of this document this will become clearer (if not, put your
>   questions and I will discuss it). It is most certainly a practical
>   philosophy of life, what will become apparent if you apply its
>   principles to daily life.
>
>   The gap, spoken of above, has not always been there. It has grown
>   gradually, as science opposed itself to dogmatic theology.
>   Nowadays science is completely materialistic in its views.
>   Even consciousness is reduced to materialistic processes.
>   But we can already notice the vague contours of a new,
>   less materialistic science that incorporates the
>   paradigm of wholeness or the essential connectedness of all beings.
>   David Bohm was one of the pioneers in this area.
>
>   Paul Feyerabend has shown that scientific models are comparable to the
>   models of nature, pictured in the old myths of humanity. This should
>   make the sometimes arrogant people of science a little more humble.
>   They just have too many pretensions. Plato would say that
>   materialistic science can never arrive at truth, because it wholly
>   depends on what our senses tell us about the world. Instead we should
>   develop our inner sense of understanding to such a degree that we can
>   perceive the causes behind all visible phenomena. Our outer senses are
>   just a help for living on this outer plane of life.
>
>   Theosophy closes the gap between science and religion by providing the
>   knowledge of the principles of nature which can be recognized by both
>   religion and science, if properly investigated. In essence, Theosophy
>   is the core of all great religions and grand philosophies (such as
>   from Plato and Pythagoras). In its religious aspect it tells us what
>   the goal of all life is; in its philosophical aspect why things are as
>   they are. In its scientific aspect it tells us how nature works. These
>   three aspects are all interconnected and should never be seperated,
>   because seperation causes a real loss of understanding. Seperation
>   also causes science to lose its ethical basis, which is just what has
>   happened during the last centuries.
>
>   Knowledge of (esoteric) science gives tremendous responsibilities.
>   Abuse by selfish minds can cause severe disasters. That's why this
>   kind of knowledge is severely restricted from being given to humanity.
>   Of course, sometimes dangerous knowledge is discovered by scientists
>   themselves, like the secrets of nuclear energy. It has created a real
>   threat to the safety of mankind.
>
>   Well, you might ask, what knowledge is given to this world? This is
>   the subject of the next section:
>
>THE SEVEN JEWELS OF WISDOM

>   Theosophy gives an outline of universal principles, the operations of
>   which can be recognized by everybody with an open mind. Recognition of
>   these principles is possible through gradual development of the
>   faculty of understanding (by unselfish service to mankind combined
>   with esoteric study). All these principles can be found in the
>   literature of many religions, especially the mystical sections, e.g.
>   Sufism, Gnosis, ancient Kabbalah, certain parts of Buddhism,
>   Hindoeism, etc, as well in old myths.
>
>   The most important principles or truths are called:

>   "The seven jewels of wisdom".
>
>   Together, these jewels give a sublime, practical system of ethics,
>   incorporating the idea of Universal Brotherhood (the essential
>   connectedness of all beings) to be discussed more fully in a later
>   cycle of this document. These jewels can be used to build a system of
>   science, which is based on consciousness as primary factor.
>
>First Jewel

>   The first jewel concerns the doctrine of reincarnation or
>   reimbodiment.
>
>   Theosophy proceeds from a spiritual point of view. It says that
>   consciousness is prior to form or manifestation. Consciousness
>   imbodies itself periodically in a suitable form. Socrates talks about
>   this in Plato's Phaedo.
>
>   This doctrine really is the about the law of cycles. All processes in
>   nature are of a cyclic nature. There are literally hundreds of
>   examples in nature that substantiate this law. Some more examples:

>     * the seasons in nature
>     * growth of seeds, fruition, decay, death and rebirth of new seeds
>     * fever
>     * revolution of planets around the sun
>     * civilizations
>     * valencies in the periodic system of chemical elements
>     * processes of thought (a thought is born, can grow and can die..)
>       This particular example will be explained more fully in a new
>       cycle of this document, because of its special importance in
>       getting control of your life.
>
>
>
>   What looks like an unconnected bunch of examples, is in reality
>   related to each other by a process called: the analogical workings of
>   nature.
>
>Second Jewel

>   The second jewel is the old doctrine of Karma (law of cause and
>   effect) which is about the restoration of harmony after disturbances.
>
>   This law states that every action produces a reaction that is in
>   accord with the action. This law is active on all planes of being:
>   physical, psychologically and spiritually. The Christian bible has the
>   proverb: 'As ye sow, so ye shall reap', which is exactly the same
>   idea.
>
>   Karma is the universal law of justice, perceptible to the mind's eye
>   (cf. Plato). There is no other logical consistent explanation for the
>   very great differences between people than provided by this jewel of
>   wisdom and the twin doctrine of reincarnation. It also is the most
>   dificult principle to grasp, because of its endless ramifications and
>   applications to all aspects of life.
>
>   Those who believe in blind chance may do so, but they are really
>   incapable of explaining many phenomena like telepathy,
>   clairvoyance,etc. Also, they can never explain fully how it is that a
>   single cell develops into a human body. Theosophy can explain these
>   phenomena and has done so for a long time. Together these first two
>   jewels can explain many questions we have about life. This will be
>   elaborated upon in a new cycle of this document, also depending on
>   your suggestions and questions.
>
>Third Jewel

>   The third jewel concerns the doctrine of hierarchies.
>
>   This principle of nature is not well-known. Yet Plato and Pythagoras
>   taught it in their academies. They stated the hierarchical structure
>   of nature to be a fact. Indeed, we can observe some remarkable
>   examples in nature and elsewhere that point clearly in this direction:
>
>
>     * Our body is organized in a most hierarchical fashion. It is
>       composed of organs, which are itself composed of tissues, which
>       are composed of cells, which are in its turn composed of certain
>       structures,etc.
>
>     * The many kingdoms of nature have a certain hierarchical
>       relationship which can only be mentioned briefly here. The mineral
>       kingdom can said to have a relation to the human body. The plant
>       kingdom uses minerals in its chemical, physiological processes.
>       The animal kingdom uses the mineral and plant kingdoms The human
>       kingdom uses or better misuses all kingdoms below it.
>
>       There are other kingdoms which cannot be elaborated upon now, but
>       may be briefly mentioned. Above the human kingdom there are divine
>       kingdoms (why would the human race be the most evolved species in
>       the universe? It isn't.)
>
>     * In man himself there is most certainly a hierarchy of beings
>
>       For simplicity I only mention some:
>
>          + the mineral and plant parts in man [bones, resp. hairs]
>          + the animal part in man
>          + the thinking part in man
>          + the inspirative part in man
>
>   This will probably raise some questions. In another cycle of this
>   document I plan to treat more fully of these parts. Mark that these
>   ideas were well known among many of the ancient peoples. On Hawaii we
>   can find the Huna-religion which just treats of the same ideas as
>   found in this example.
>
>   Societies have inherently such a structure. There is a government
>   (which does a good or bad job..), there are states, counties, towns,
>   families and individuals.
>
>   Because intellectual knowledge is higher valued than real wisdom, we
>   see the deplorable picture of governments that are not able to really
>   help their people. The accumulated wisdom of all ages is available tho
>   those who want to listen and think it over..
>
>Fourth Jewel

>   The fourth jewel is the principle of the unique characteristic of
>   every being and class of beings. This is a rather abstract principle
>   to grasp.
>
>   The idea behind this principle is that every being, consciousness,
>   manifests itself in just that form that is in accordance with the
>   developed qualities of the reimbodying consciousness. Human
>   consciousness takes a human form (body), animal consciousness
>   reimbodies into an animal, etc. More specifically stated, a
>   horse-consciousness becomes a horse; a rose-consciousness becomes a
>   rose, etc.
>
>   This brings up the question of heredity. Materialistic science tells
>   us that the cause for a rose-seed developing into a rose lies in its
>   genes. Well, to be sure, heredity exists, but it is only a secondary
>   phenomenon. We can ask a question: what are the causes for a certain
>   pattern of genes to exist? This question can never be answered by
>   science as it is now. Theosophy gives some general clues when we
>   combine the seven jewels together. At this point I should point out
>   that there are many questions of detail which require a life-long
>   study and research. At the end of this document I will provide some
>   keys to be used in this kind of research.
>
>   It should be clear by now that this principle reverses the point of
>   vision regarding heredity: heredity is not a cause for our character,
>   but just the result of our character that we built during ages and
>   ages. Heredity confines itself to the physical aspect of man.
>
>   (to be continued)
>
>Fifth Jewel

>   The fifth jewel of wisdom concerns the principle of progressive
>   evolution.
>
>   Now, evolution as it is understood by Darwin and his followers
>   concerns itself with the transformation of forms and the survival of
>   the fittest.
>
>   Theosophy regards these processes as secondary processes and states
>   clearly that consciousness is the primary factor in evolution.
>   Moreover, evolution means literally, to e-volve, to manifest certain
>   qualities (of consciousness in matter!). No phenomenon is possible
>   without an active, intelligent force. (Are you still there?) Each
>   phenomenon is evolved from Universal Life-Matter in a long line of
>   differentiations. At the same time it is Life, involved in Matter. So,
>   we have two concurrent processes, instead of just an empty
>   transformation of forms as the Darwinists will have us believe.
>
>   Now, regarding the term progressive evolution, it is stated that there
>   is a gradual development of qualities of conscience, as can be seen in
>   the different kingdoms of life. Plants are more evolved than minerals.
>   Animals are more evolved than plants, men are more evolved than
>   animals (some people may think differently..). Of course, we see men
>   often behave like animals (this is a part of our nature) but there are
>   also many examples of unselfish people who sacrifice their own life
>   for others.
>
>   Man has evolved the thinking faculty to some degree, animals have this
>   faculty in a latent condition.
>
>   Progressive evolution states that beings in a certain kingdom develop
>   their consciousness by experience in this world, they reincarnate in
>   the same kingdom until they have reached the limit of possible
>   experiences in this kingdom. Then these beings can enter the next
>   higher kingdom, after a certain period. In this new kingdom they can
>   evolve higher aspects of consciousness. This fifth jewel is clearly
>   connected with the third one, hierarchies, and the first one,
>   reincarnation.
>
>   In fact all these jewels are indissolubly interconnected.
>
>   For men, it is taught, there are still a lot of aspects of
>   consciousness that can be developed. To give two important examples:
>   the faculty of Understanding (discernment) and the faculty of
>   Inspiration (consciousness of the essential unity of all beings). This
>   is our great task. Nowadays we mostly let control our lives by our
>   lower desires and impulses. Instead, we can use the faculties of
>   Imagination and Will to create a powerful image of Brotherhood,
>   cooperation and peace. This fascinating subject will be elaborated in
>   another session. It is really a most effective way of changing the
>   mental atmosphere on this planet. Plato says: 'Ideas rule the world',
>   and he is right. Of course, we should also perform the necessary
>   actions to help realise our ideals.
>
>   All the great Teachers of humanity point out the way out of human
>   misery . This is further elucidated in the next two jewels.
>
>Sixth Jewel

>   The sixth jewel of wisdom states that: duality is the basis for all
>   manifestations
>
>   Krishna speaks about the 'pairs of opposites' in the Bhagavad Gita.
>   Mind and Matter are the two poles of manifestation. The interaction of
>   these two poles causes all progress and regress. This, again, is a
>   most profound subject with profound philosophical implications.
>
>   We can choose between selfish action or selfless service for the
>   benefit of the whole. Those who act selfishly confine their
>   consciousness to a very narrow area of existence and experience.
>
>   Those who work for the benefit of the world extend their consciousness
>   to higher planes of consciousness. Of course, this is a gradual
>   process. In Buddhism, there is a teaching about the Path of
>   Compassion. Those who work for the benefit of others , who have no
>   feelings of seperateness from others (the greatest heresy in Buddhism)
>   tread this Path ( not for themselves, but for others). They refuse
>   Liberation or Nirvana when faced with the possibility of acquiring
>   this, because they do not want it as long as others suffer in misery.
>   They do not desert the poor orphan humanity. This is the most sublime
>   ethics ever conceived of in the entire history of mankind!
>
>Seventh Jewel

>   The seventh jewel is about knowing the essence of all life.
>
>   What is the origin of all things? How does the One Essence becomes the
>   manifold? These questions are really most fundamental in philosophy.
>   It refers to the Source of all manifestation.
>
>   Is it possible to know the origin of life? Yes, Theosophy answers. In
>   the heart or core of each being Universal Life is to be found. 'Thou
>   Art That', the Upanishads say. Every human being can discover this
>   Divine Spark inside by gradually evolving higher aspects of his
>   consciousness. This will result in a realization of the connectedness
>   of all beings. This realization can be called 'enlightenment' and is
>   really a stepwise, gradual process.
>
>   Mark that evolution is the expression of inner faculties of
>   consciousness. By treading the Path of Compassion, not for one self,
>   but for the whole, one is bound to discover the core or essence of
>   things.
>
>   To be realistic, this will take many reincarnations. Of course, this
>   doesn't matter, because there is no end to evolution..
>
>   The only thing that matters is the right application of the right
>   understanding of the ancient knowledge-wisdom to daily life by using
>   your common-sense.
>
>   Some keys for the scientist-philosopher.
>   ---------------------------------------

>   The main purpose of all that has been said is to demonstrate the
>   existence of a coherent, consistent philosophy of life, which shows us
>   the rationale for ethical behaviour. Who would be so stupid to hurt
>   his fellowmen when he understands that by doing so he is really
>   hurting himself? The essential connectedness of all beings is a
>   central theme in this philosophy.
>
>   The second purpose of this document is to provide some stimulating
>   thoughts for those scientists (or people who are really interested in
>   science) who understand that a synthesis between old religious truths
>   and science is a possibility. Now, I cannot provide a finished,
>   complete system of deductive methods of esoteric science. A lot of
>   building blocks are already provided however by Theosophy.
>
>   An important principle can be found in the statement:
>
>   "nature works along analogical lines". Macrocosmic processes are
>   analogical to microcosmic processes.
>
>   The application of the seven jewels of wisdom is possible by using
>   this masterkey of analogy.
>
>   The Hermetic axiom: "So above, so below" is to be applied in every
>   direction conceivable. A deep study of the third jewel, along with the
>   other jewels of course, will yield surprising results, I think.
>
>   Also a study of old myths and sacred literature will furnish food for
>   deep contemplation. H.P. Blavatsky tells us, in the Secret Doctrine,
>   that seven keys of interpretation must be applied to each symbol and
>   allegory to fully understand what is meant.
>
>   These seven keys are: geometrical, numerical (e.g.,Ancient Kabbalah),
>   physiological (& anthropological), physical-chemical, metaphysical,
>   astronomical (& Ancient astrology, now hardly available), and
>   psychological.
>
>   This is really a master-project, which none can undertake alone.
>   Nevertheless, I hope some daring minds will take up the challenge of
>   synthesizing religion, science and philosophy into one system along
>   the lines sketched. The broad outline of this system is already given
>   to us by Theosophy.
>
>   Science will need to incorporate consciousness as a basic factor into
>   its system, otherwise it will fail to fulfil its real task: helping
>   people to understand how nature really works, thus motivating them to
>   act and think according to the principles of the timeless wisdom
>   hidden in the book of nature; principles which are, to some extent,
>   revealed by Theosophy.
>
>   Martin
>   euser@euronet.nl



________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From RAINGER@delphi.com Tue Jun 25 15:11:00 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:11:00 -0500 (EST)
From: RAINGER@delphi.com
Subject: Information Wanted
Message-Id: <01I6BLQP4FPE8X37CF@delphi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Dear Friends

Thank you for your information about Wizard Bookshelf.
I am now in contact with them.

I was disappointed that I only received a reply from
Finland when I asked for information about courses etc
for the magazine to be put out in the Gulf States.  Perhaps
there is nothing else to be said.  My worst fears have
been realized and the Theosophical Society exists
only in people's imaginations!

Seriously - if you have any information about events anywhere in
the world - for inclusion in the October edition of the Gulf
New Age Magazine - please let me know.

many thanks - Michael.
MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
22 Prices Lane
York YO2 1AL
England

Tel:01904 670203
E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 02:10:44 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 03:10:44 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960624184931.006d64d8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960624184931.006d64d8@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>It also means to go out and try to end oppression and
>tyranny and injustice and prejudice. That's what I do, and let the "good
>thoughts" sort of float around as they wish. Now if that kind of action is
>the RESULT of a positive thought pattern, and it most likely is, then that's
>fine. But it's the result of an insensible thought pattern and not sitting
>down and STRIVING to "think good thoughts".
>See what I mean?

I see what you mean, so for "insensible thought pattern," read "good
thoughts."  OK? :-). Striving to think "Good Thoughts" is plain crazy.
You either get 'em or you don't.  If I see someone in pain, and it makes
*me* hurt, why, that's a "good thought" too if I share the pain and feel
compassion.  Etc ....

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Jun 25 15:34:02 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 11:34:02 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606251534.LAA08046@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Request to AD, BR, CC

At the risk of getting flamed for asking this, would y'all
please make your personal insults in personal e-mail?  Without
taking sides, I must say I feel this kind of thing pollutes the
atmosphere and has no beneficial effects.
From RIhle@aol.com Tue Jun 25 15:59:32 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:59:32 -0400
From: RIhle@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625115930_339038333@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Opportunity

>Hooray for YOU! That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch! I agree
>with everything below as well.
>alexis

My first real memory of Joy was perhaps twenty-five or more years ago, now.
 She was passing through Madison and gave my wife and I a call because she
had noticed our names as new members.  Could she stop by for a minute?  OK.

We were somewhat poor and peculiar in those days.  Sandra was finishing her
Ph.D. at U.W., and I had the word ~Ubermensh~ on the bumper of my V.W. van
for some reason. Joy and someone else showed up at our door.  We moved aside
some of the squalor, let them have the two chairs we owned, and sat
more-or-less at their feet in hillbilly embarrassment.

The president of the American Section was right in our living room, and the
signs of our sins and sloth--from overflowing ashtrays to candy wrappers to
cheap sex novels--occupied 100% of every available horizontal surface.  Youth
was our only possible excuse; Joy accepted with enthusiasm.

We served our visitors Lipton tea in cups which were clean but not above
suspicion, and the four of us talked gloriously for a couple hours of many
things--high and low.  Joy tried to interest us in something she called ~the
Theosophical Philosophy~ (~Theosophy~ was not yet the synonym for "Core
Teachings" in those days), but she seemed genuinely interested in hearing our
perspectives on theosophy as well.

After she had left, Sandra turned to me and said, "You know, it was like Joy
Mills was treating ~us~ like the honored guests rather than vice versa."

Yes, that is how she had treated us, all right.  In fact, that is how she
treated me in all the years which followed.  This is significant, I feel,
because later it became obvious that I was not her "cup of tea" as far as
(T)theosophy was concerned.  Still, throughout all of her presidency, she
encouraged me and gave me many speaking and writing opportunities.  Not only
did Joy seem to have a gracious finesse in carrying out her responsibilities,
but she also had a highly developed sense of fair play as well.

All in all, I am almost tempted to describe Joy in the same way I once heard
her describe Clara Codd:  "one of Theosophy's saints."

Naturally, though, I am inclined toward hyperbole.  Maybe Joy is a saint;
maybe not.  Nonetheless, I notice that she is scheduled to speak at the
convention, and for some not fully definable reason something seems to be
prompting me once again to drive down to Wheaton to hear what she has to
say--especially in what must be the late-afternoon of her life.

I mention this up-coming appearance of Joy's just in case anyone wants to
take advantage of one of the perhaps few remaining opportunities to call the
refined, loving, and indefatigable old crusader for Theosophy an "arrogant
bitch" to her face. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle





From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Jun 25 18:34:02 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 13:34:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Request to AD, BR, CC
In-Reply-To: <199606251534.LAA08046@leo.vsla.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote:

> At the risk of getting flamed for asking this, would y'all
> please make your personal insults in personal e-mail?  Without
> taking sides, I must say I feel this kind of thing pollutes the
> atmosphere and has no beneficial effects.
>
I join you in your request.
_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 19:05:13 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:05:13 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625190513.006c43e0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Information Wanted

At 10:22 AM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Friends
>
>Thank you for your information about Wizard Bookshelf.
>I am now in contact with them.
>
>I was disappointed that I only received a reply from
>Finland when I asked for information about courses etc
>for the magazine to be put out in the Gulf States.  Perhaps
>there is nothing else to be said.  My worst fears have
>been realized and the Theosophical Society exists
>only in people's imaginations!
>
>Seriously - if you have any information about events anywhere in
>the world - for inclusion in the October edition of the Gulf
>New Age Magazine - please let me know.
>
>many thanks - Michael.
>MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
>22 Prices Lane
>York YO2 1AL
>England
>
>Tel:01904 670203
>E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
>
>The biggest problem Michael, is that The Theosophical Society exists only
in its OWN imagination! Out of a world poulation of five and one half
Billion souls, a membership of thirty one thousand is insignificant,
especially when one expert estimates that there are only, at best, five or
six thousand ACTIVE members.

A "Gulf New Age Magazine"? At whom is it directed? One would think that "New
Age thinking" is hardly compatible with Islamic Fundamentalism. Tell us
about it.

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 19:14:14 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:14:14 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625191414.006cf850@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

At 11:19 AM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960624184931.006d64d8@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>It also means to go out and try to end oppression and
>>tyranny and injustice and prejudice. That's what I do, and let the "good
>>thoughts" sort of float around as they wish. Now if that kind of action is
>>the RESULT of a positive thought pattern, and it most likely is, then that's
>>fine. But it's the result of an insensible thought pattern and not sitting
>>down and STRIVING to "think good thoughts".
>>See what I mean?
>
>I see what you mean, so for "insensible thought pattern," read "good
>thoughts."  OK? :-). Striving to think "Good Thoughts" is plain crazy.
>You either get 'em or you don't.  If I see someone in pain, and it makes
>*me* hurt, why, that's a "good thought" too if I share the pain and feel
>compassion.  Etc ....
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan:

Let's look at it this way: People should do good things without any thinking
about it at all, because it just comes naturally, because "door of good
things" is what the person is by nature. That's what I mean by an
"insensible thought pattern", it means "thoughts one doesn't think about" or
automatic behavior. It means being empathic and reacting helpfully because
one has no other choice. It's certainly not the kind of action someone who
divides the world into "Tourists and Pilgrims" would understand. You know
it's funny throughout history, "Pilgrims" have always been terribly
anti-social people, and America's Pilgrims were really not very nice people
as they were bigots of an incredible degree.
Am I correct in assuming that you find the "tourists and pilgrim" nonsense
as ugly as J.R.C. and myself do? By the way, I have had personal experience
of Joy Mills and to me, she is just like your Bristol Lodge president.

alexei

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 19:27:14 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:27:14 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625192714.006b63a4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Request to AD, BR, CC

At 11:36 AM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At the risk of getting flamed for asking this, would y'all
>please make your personal insults in personal e-mail?  Without
>taking sides, I must say I feel this kind of thing pollutes the
>atmosphere and has no beneficial effects.
>
>"Y'all"????? oh Paul you've been in Virginia too long....But don't worry my
friend, I at least will no longer engage in ANY discussions with BR on any
subject. As to CC he's his own Master and you'll have to talk to him separately.

I have a confession to make, I got mad and said something "bad"...I called
Joy Mills an arrogant bitch because of her "Tourists and Pilgrims"
comparison (and slide show)...I wish I could feel bad about it, but I can't.

Perhaps a little (or a lot) of passion is what it will take to awaken
theosophy from it's totally smug, self-centered, self righteous dream. But
no one knows how self-righteous and smug it is  better than you.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Tue Jun 25 19:45:00 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:45:00 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960625194500.006d307c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Opportunity

At 12:16 PM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Hooray for YOU! That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch! I agree
>>with everything below as well.
>>alexis
>

>I mention this up-coming appearance of Joy's just in case anyone wants to
>take advantage of one of the perhaps few remaining opportunities to call the
>refined, loving, and indefatigable old crusader for Theosophy an "arrogant
>bitch" to her face. . . .
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Richard Ihle
>
>Richard:

I am a very up front person. I've called her that right to her face, in
1973!(At the Science and Spirit Exposition) She, and the E.S. are the reason
I resigned from The Society at that time. Joy is, along with John Algeo the
personification of everything that went wrong with theosophy.

It's very very easy for a person like Joy to be pleasantly condescending to
people who treat her like an honored celebrity and who make it clear how
honored they are by her presence. Just try disagreeing with her over policy
some time. In fact, just try disagreeing with her about anything anytime.
It's really easy to be nice to folks who act like you're some kind of
Goddess. But it's not so easy to argue with the National President. She's
the primary reason for my absolute disdain for the E.S.. In a way Richard
you chose the right word "Crusader", the Crusaders were just like her. I
don't have a high opinion of them either even though I'm descended from some
of them.

I find it very interesting that when I post a message agreeing with you, or
supporting some position of yours, there is no response, but there is always
a response when I do something which you don't like, or which disturbs your
dreary lower middle-class self-righteousness. Oh well..............

alexis

>
>
>
>
>

From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 25 22:10:57 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:10:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606252210.AAA13005@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Various and Sundry



?>Soon you and I may be asked to go through an examination to recertify
>that we have *learnt* Theosophy and many of us may flunk it because we
>have not understood the official version of Theosophy.
	

Jerry>But this is exactly what Judge did.  His exams are in
Echoes of the Orient Vol III.  Most of his students flunked, which
depressed him a bit, and kept him from giving out more of the
teachings.

	Now that you say it, yes, I've read that stuff.
The students you're referring to were members of the esoteric section,
not 'ordinary' theosophists, I think.  It is hard to understand now
(at this point of time) what was the motivation of Judge to ask his
E.S. students to go through exams. It reminds me of school (brr..).

It looks like he had the idea that his students had to exercise
discipline in the matters of esoteric teaching? Well, judging from
the mess HPB's E.S.-students made I can understand his attitude, but
for our current time, I wouldn't like to pass 'exams of theosophy'
for sure. Discipline is another thing. I think it is required indeed
when one studies Raja yoga, but it should be an interior thing, something
one develops him/herself. Another thing is a correspondence course,
which many societies (TS or not) are offering. Most often people are
asked to answer some questions at regular intervals. Generally these
are not examinations, however.

Martin


From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 25 22:10:52 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:10:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606252210.AAA12989@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Heindel


>For: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)

e> Max Heindel. An important figure in one of the Rosicrucean Fellowships.
 k>When he wrote most of his books?


	In the first half of this century I think. You can find a lot
of information from him on the webpage (see below)

k> It's interesting, because his
conception closely meets theosophical, but rather Leadbeater or
Bailey than early theosophy.

	I think he borrowed freely from theosophical sources.	

e> There's even a webpage with many of his writings..
 Do you know an address?

Konstantin: I cannot find the URL on my pc. It's easy to find, though,
through the Altavista search-engine. Point your browser (or your friend's
one) to:

http://www.altavista.digital.com/

search for Heindel in a world wide web search.

If, for some reason, it's not possible for you to do so, then let me know
(then I'll look it up for you).

Regards,

Martin







From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 25 22:11:03 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:11:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606252211.AAA13017@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: core teachings & ruminations



M>what forces/consciousnesses/substances are involved in this causation?

J>	The forces are those of order and chaos.  In Hindu terms,
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are alive and well.  Individual karma, on
the astral-mental level is largely the effect of guilt and remorse.

	
	karma on astral-mental level: do you mean karma related to
kama-manasic acts? Desire for personal success, greed, ambition, etc.
seem to be the causal factors there, I think.
 Guilt and remorse are pseudo-realities, rather useless
(especially remorse) I'd say. I mean these feelings/thoughts
are in the psyche's content, but largely due to aeons of dogmatic
theology and inadequate education.


J>  We often suffer today for what we *think* we did in the past.
 For people with a lot of guilt, purification processes, prayers,
and so on work well.

	Yes, until they discover they're fooling themselves
with these things, contenting themselves with pseudo-realities.	

	


Jerry>	Manas is a principle.  I assume you mean here the human
monad (?).

	Yes. But manas is a principle *and* an entity, according to G de P.
	Iow, it is individualized consciousness. I take 'principle' to be
 a form of consciousness (however high it may be). Manas is an
 individualization of Mahat, thus an entity, I think. I checked HPB's
 glossary but found some very short descriptions only.

J>  You
can think of the lower manas as a ray of the higher, but "ray" gives
a false impression, at least to me.  I prefer manifestation or
expression on a lower plane--the Ego (individuality) is on the causal
plane while the ego (personality) is on the mental plane.

	A ray means a manifestation, issuing forth from some source,
in this case the Ego. Does causal plane equate with buddhi or buddhi-manas?
Personality is kama-manas and this is on astral/mental planes (mixed,
I gather). Again the duality of manas is the issue here. HPB says it is
only correctly explained in esoteric works (not very satisfying for the
student to be left in the dark..)



J> We do not have
to be subject to our skandhas, anymore than we need be
subjected or controlled by the planets.  We have free will, and
can (and should) start making some new, and better, skandhas.
In fact, skandhas can be eliminated in what is called the
jivamukti.

	Yes, that's entirely my concept of it.



M>Yes, I think so too. Did you use clairvoyant observation to come to that
>conclusion?
	
J>Memory.  Also, I like Tibetan Buddhism, and they teach
entrance at conception.

	Did you use some technique to revive those memories?

M> But you know more about it, having practiced
>Kundalini Yoga, don't you? What is this yoga all about? How does it work?
	
J>There are two basic kinds of yoga.  In one, we raise
consciousness to a higher level leaving the physical behind.

	Can you give names for this first one? Belongs the practice
of OBE (astral projection) to this first category?
	

J>  In
the other, we bring down spiritual energy into our body.  The latter
is what Kundalini Yoga does, and yes it is dangerous.    One of
the goals is to spiritualize the physical body.  Sri Aurobindu tried
this for years and finally announced that because we were so far
into the Kali Yuga, it could no longer be done.  He may be right.

	Where would you classify a) Hatha Yoga  b) Raja/Jnana Yoga?
The practice of Hatha Yoga could effect our body, isn't it?
Raja Yoga has effects on psyche and thought-pattern and maybe on the body too?

Martin


From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 25 22:11:22 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:11:22 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606252211.AAA13066@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail order Theosophy


>
>Martin: I want to get something straight with you. I am not trying to
insult Bjorn, but I really don't care if I do. I wan't calling him an
"idiot" thereby using the word as a pejorative (insult)


Ok, I see that you mean a different connotation of the word.


A>Now, you and I disagree almost entirely on most things,

Do we?


A>but I really enjoy
discussing these things with you.
 While I feel you're wrong on many (all
right.....most) things,


	Maybe you're drawing this conclusion a bit too hastily.
You hardly know my opinion of Theosophy, just a little bit of it.
Even when you've studied my articles on Theosophy (which you
probably didn't - did you?) - even then you know only a little bit
of what I actually think and feel about these things.
I would be careful with drawing conclusions so hastily.


A> our discussions are interesting and I, at least,
enjoy them. This is equally true with Christopher Allen, he too disagrees
strongly with almost everything I say, and visa versa. But like my present
discussions with you there's no hostility either way and I think that in
time the discussions will be productive if only in that we three will each
be able to make our individual cases more clearly.


Well, maybe we can learn from each other? At least I hope so.

A> I have a problem with people who are, or rather, who
claim to be, "good buddies" with "The Master Jesus". Bjorn doesn't like me
because I made statements that invalidated both Elisabeth Clair "Prophet"
and Mr. Ballard, whom I believe to be (in Ballard's case...to have been)
strictly con-artists and phonies.


	Well, I've read one book by ECP and was not very much impressed.
 But I would not be quick to ridicule another one's experiences, however
 unlikely these may seem .

A> Now I've also said that I have some
problems with GdeP's attitude (racist) and his writings, but I have never
felt him to be a con-artist or a phoney. I just don't agree with much that
he had to say just as I don't agree with much that you have to say.

	Well, that's your right. I don't see GdeP having a racist attitude
though, but that's a matter of different opinions.

A> But I will tell the truth as I see it.


Of course, everybody should do that and in my opinion it should be done
in such a way as to not hurt another one's feelings.


Martin

From euser@euronet.nl Tue Jun 25 22:11:12 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:11:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606252211.AAA13038@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)



A> The biggest hurdle is
>that it is my perception that "Core Theosophy" as presently taught, is 95%
>CWL/AB....5% HPB....and 0% The Mahatmas.
>


M>In TSA but not in other TS's. CWL/AB do not count there.

A>Oh absolutely not, but they each of them have their own versions. Pasadena
has Katherine Tingley and G do P, and the ULT has an entirely devotional
approach to HPB and WQJ. I think in all cases HPB has been "sidelined".


	Well, that's your opinion of course. My opinion is quite different.
Regarding G de P: if you had really studied his writings you would see
that most of it deals with elaborating the ideas of HPB, and I wouldn't
exactly call it 'sidelining' her.


M>What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.

A>And a serious question deserves a serious answer: A Ceremonial Magician
utilizes ritual, which is a complicated construct of sensory input, to focus
his/her will and the acquiescent wills of those who may be present, in an
attempt to change reality in conformity with that will.
>

	Sensory input like what?



M>Well, I think that  a really good healer should be able to heal people
>with AIDS, so that's not a problem with me. If the word is spread your
>house may be flooded with AIDS-patients (then you will be faced with
>problems of how to deal with too many patients).

A>I wouldn't find it a problem, I can train others to do what I do very
quickly, and I think there's be no better healer than one who was healed.
The only thing that "bothers" me at all, is that in two of the cases,
they're back at their old haunts doing just what they did to get sick in the
first place.


  That's the dilemma a healer is faced with: do I accept only patients
who are willing to understand the causes of their disease (with the help
of the healer) or just every patient that comes along?



M>>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.

A>Oh that's quite true, I just would be very careful as to what "frame of
reference" I used.

	Indeed. I'm choosing a frame of reference that is an intrinsic
part of the age-old Wisdom tradition. You, on the other hand, dismiss
this frame of reference without giving strong arguments against it
(maybe you do in your book). So, you leave me in the dark as to why
exactly you don't find it an appropriate frame of reference.



>A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
>"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
>fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
>today's young people.
>

M>Never had one complaint about that. I wonder whether others have some
>experience with that. The necessity of presenting a framework doesn't
>disappear with that, however.

A>I have a feeling that perhaps your speech in your own language is not as
'flowery" as it is in a language that isn't your first one.


	I don't think the style of my articles is flowery at all.
Maybe you should read them, if you didn't do that already, and then point
out what's so flowery about it. The only flowery expression is 'seven
jewels of wisdom' and that happens to be a translation of Sapta-Ratnani
(Sanskrit compound), the old name for the seven jewels teachings.

A>And yes a
framework is important but it had best be a valid one, and there's
altogether too much about "Core Theosophy" that is anything BUT valid.
That's my opinion of course.

	Of course. But I do not count Leadbeater's teachings as 'Core
Theosophy'.


M>I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.

A>Oh please do! If you'd put it that way in the first place we'd have a
broader basis to stand on.

	Well, I could present  a reformulation, one by one, but slowly
as it takes some time to do so.

A> My view is that there is no such thing
as "divinely ordered truth" and that what I am seeking is not so much
"truth" as an understanding of abstract realities. For that is what "truth"
means to me......."abstract realities".

	Don't you see order and structure in this universe?
And don't you acknowledge the existence of spiritual beings (angels,
 etc.)? Last time I asked you, you evaded this question.


A>What sort of degree?

	Roughly equivalent to bachelor (a bit more than that I think).

A>
 I know too may people who would not accept your presentation of
quantum Theory as a "measurement process" and nothing more.

	A matter of opinion. Feynman, one of the greatest physicists
of this century and the one who developed the most successful theory
in physics (quantum-electrodynamics) also held this opinion.
Good company :)

A> Second I am told
that you should have said that "some Physicists are flabbergasted" and not
implied that they all are.

	You're nitpicking here. My God, your own style of writing
 is abundant with things I can nitpick on (and maybe rightfully so)
in infinitely larger degree.


A> Lastly everyone knows (I assume that if I do,
everyone does) that there are basic assumptions in Relativity Theory that
are wrong, Einstein himself acknowledged that.

	Get real, Alexis, most people know nothing of RT at all!

The most funny thing about RT is, BTW, that the Lorentz-transformations
have never been deduced from first principles successfully. Einstein
made an error in his first derivation, which was acknowledged later
on, but despite a price being offered to people who would correctly
deduce these transformations nobody succeeded (I doubt whether
someone has succeeded thus far). All the deductions are wrong, because
these can be shown to involve a type of 0.something =0.some other thing
equations (physicists consistently made errors with vector signs)
Maybe you don't believe me, but I studied the matter. Some physicists
have found the errors in the deductions. There findings are ignored,
however, because RT formulae seem to work. In textbooks, the formulae
are typically just given without any attempt to deduce them (I don't
know all textbooks on RT of course, but I'm talking about those I've seen)


 A>But no matter what, I think
our modern sciences at this point in time are far more in resonance with a
"roll of the dice" theory than they are with "divine ordinance".

	But sciences will discover new facts (have already) and will
have to change their theories.


>A> I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
>effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
>a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
>beings.


	Sounds good. Only, I am pretty sure that we all are part and parcel
of a greater whole (Oversoul), so I wouldn't separate cosmos from
humankind. My experience indicates indeed that the unit (human being)
is embedded in a larger whole but the exact relations and implications
are not fully clear to me. So, I cannot fully agree with your statement,
but would consider it as an undecided issue (for me, that is).


M>Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize this conception too, but I am
>convinced that there is Order in this universe, however it may be
>working. What is your view on order and structure in this universe?
>And how is it related to the equilibrium you're talking about in the
>previous paragraph?
>

(I keep the above question in this reply. It is vital for my understanding
of your ideas about cosmos and man's place therein)



A>Thought patterns (egregores) are entirely speculative and hypothetical, I
should hate to base our world society on hypothesis.


	Of course, nobody is saying that we should. But it may be not
a speculation for all of us. And, contrary to what you say, world
society *is* based on hypotheses or rather points of view. In the middle
ages people though that the world was flat and many were afraid to travel
far (they might fall off the earth..). Plato says that 'ideas rule the world'
and I think he is right. The economies of countries are partly based
on ideas how economy works (economists may be wrong in their ideas
and politicians may implement the wrong measures and many will suffer
as a consequence of those ideas as I do think currently is the case)


A>Once again I acknolwedge the POSSIBILITY of the existance of egregores and
speculative objects, to do more than that, would I submit, be mistaken.

	That depends on the individual, I'd say. Someone who experiences
that kind of things would *know* and not speculate.

Martin

From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 25 23:13:52 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:13:52 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625191351_224949716@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Eldon,
The world is changing and none of us can see where it is going to end up, but
at the moment all group activities are suffering, not just TS ones.  It is a
situation we are just going to have to adapt to.
Now I rather enjoy group stuff myself.  There is nothing to compare with
sitting down to a pizza and some beer with friends and discussing
philosophies of various descriptions, including theosophy.  And the internet
does create just groups, I am still sort of recovering from a gathering of
magicians that meets once a year and we all met originally on the internet.
 So I agree that there will always be a role for groups.  The question is how
formal will they be?

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 25 23:15:04 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:15:04 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625191503_224950331@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alan,
But you know that the Bishop says that women can't be masters.  All the
Kudalini runs out somewhere (and I'm not kidding, he raelly did imply that
when he wrote about women not being LCC clergy.)  Of course, the idea of a
master with pms...
This could get interesting.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 25 23:14:56 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:14:56 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625191455_224950387@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Request to AD, BR, CC

Paul
Consider yourself flamed.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 25 23:14:57 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:14:57 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625191456_224950354@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Order Theosophy

Alex,
You forget, we all know each other real well.  Gert, Kathleen and I come out
of the same club, as it were.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Jun 25 23:15:16 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:15:16 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625191515_224950415@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Opportunity

Rich,
Joy may not always be one of my favorite people, but I don't think calling
her an "arrogant bitch" to her face is going to improve her very much.
 Besides, as a lot of people consider me to be an "arrogant son of a bitch"
some folks might make the mistake of thinking that I'm related to her.
I will deal with her as I always have, cordially, making little in-jokes with
her about the effect her presence always seems to have on the weather (we had
a blizzard the first time I met her) and realize that she cannot help being
what life has made her any more than the rest of us can prevent being what
life has made us.
Actually, I will confess to the fact that I always take a certain guilty
pleasure in hearing her.  I rarely understand a word of what she is saying
(all that sanskritbabble) but in many ways she is the Grand Dame of the TSA
and she plays the role quite well.
And it is true, like most of our older members, one never really knows if
this convention will be the last time we see her, though she seems to be in
pretty good shape and hopefully will be around to bug us for many years to
come.

Chuck the Heretic
From coallen@cris.com Tue Jun 25 23:28:09 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606252328.TAA03719@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS

I also agree with most of what you said.  I do have a few questions
though... :-)

At 03:22 AM 6/25/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>I have written a book almost as long as Isis in which I discuss my views on
>the greater reality. But in general, I don't use the elevator notion of
>numbered planes of reality. I see the greater reality as a unified field of
>energy, manifesting as intelligence (or visa versa) in which the levels of
>reality are determined by the oscillation rates of the sine curves of the
>particle carrier waves that form the force-fields that individuate various
>entities and things. The only reality of any physical thing is as a field of
>individuated energy-intelligence.
>

Actually I know most people tend to see the plane issue as a type of
"elevator" theory.  Actually this is not the case.  I'd even go so far as to
say it's closer to your definition of the "unified field of energy."  Take
the first three planes, physical (etheric being a subset of physical),
astral, and mental.  All three planes operate on the same ground floor, they
just oscillate at different vibrations.  Physical matter has the lowest
vibrations, mental the highest (as far as the example goes).  I'd like to
take the example that Wycked God used in his email regarding the planes,
because I think it can be further extended to demonstrate how this works.

Wycked God's table (extended to account for colors & question marks):
Color              Plane           Essence           Nature
Violet            Logoic	         All manifest     Unknowable
Indigo           Monadic       Cause               Causal
Blue              Atmic	         Spirit              Spiritual
Green           Buddhic        Intuition         Harmony
Yellow          Mental	         Thought           Intelligence
Orange         Astral          Emotion           Feeling
Red               Physical       Matter            Energy

In addition to adding the color correspondences, I've also added what I
believe to be valid items for his question marks.  Just as the colors
increase in vibratory rate (as they go up the scale), so does the planes of
existence.  They all are present in white light (ether), but they are also
present individually.  Thoughts?

>
>Chris: Try to get a copy of a book called "Elder Brother" by Gregory
>Tillett. It is scholarly and well written and full of citations and
>quotations from contemporaries of Leadbeater. If you send a message to Jerry
>Hejka-Ekins (jhe@toto.csustan.edu.) He might be able to send you one. He has

I'll do that, thanks!

>a mail-order book business and is a very important theosophist. As to my own
>feelings, well Chris I have a very low opinion of a man who uses his
>prestige and position to impose himself sexually on boys under the age of
>puberty. Understand this: I am NOT complaining because he was homosexual, I
>am complaining because he was a child molester.I have a very low opinion on
>anyone who is in anyway connected wit the "Order of Saturn" even if it is
>only by way of the O.T.O. I strongly disapprove of "black magic" even though
>I don;'t believe it has any reality. But people who do practice it, do lots
>of harm without the reality. I do not think his visions were fraudulent, I
>do not consider Leadbeater to be a phony like elisabeth Clair prophet or
>others, but I do believe that his visions were hallucinations in which he
>truly and deeply believed. But I think that one only learns to share those
>hallucinations with him from his books. His visions of the Adepts were all
>very real to him, but they were nonetheless entirely hallucinatory. Adepts
>are just people, special people yes, but just people.
>>

I agree with your views on those crimes.  I think that's one of the worse
possible crimes a person can commit.  As to his visions and
"hallucinations", I don't view them as such.  AE Powell's books on the
various planes have made logical sense to me in what I chose to believe to
be reality.  I've chosen a particular path to follow, and until I'm able to
disprove for myself what I chose to believe in, I'll continue to believe it.
It may be ignorance on my part, but we've all got to start somewhere :-)

I think your views on Crowely are very accurate.

>>
> For me, the S.D. is for the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've
>told Martin Euser, once

As you said, that's our 85% disagreement :-)

>
>>The point being that even if he was insane, I've learned something
>>worthwhile from his material.  And if people are learning things they
>>consider worthwhile, his writings are worthwhile.
>
>But did you? If what he said wasn't true, and I am sure it isn't, then what
>could you "learn" that was of value?
>>

To be honest I've only read a few of his books.  Most of what I found
valuable was contained in Powell's books.  He expanded on subjects that I
knew only a little about at the time.  The Inner Life helped me to quit
smoking...I think that's pretty valuable in itself :-)

>>
>>I know right from wrong, but I do believe that each depends on the other.  I
>>may not always be able to see why something happens, but I have faith that
>>there's a valid reason (good or bad) for it to happen.  Perhaps "eternal
>>optimist" would be a better term for me than amoral ;-)
>
>Would that make me an "eternal pessimist"?:-)
>>
Hmm...

>>
>>Perhaps this is why the idea of the interchangeability of such things is not
>>taught exoterically.  When someone sees the Yin and Yang symbols, they don't
>>think, "Wow, cool.  Good and bad are interchangeable", they typically just
>>realize the dual nature of life- if that.
>
>But you see Chris, I am a monist, I totally deny that there is a dualistic
>nature of life or of anything except the natural physical plane dualism we
>all experience and love.
>>

You've proven my theory for me.  Even for you, as a monist, there is
duality.  In order for there to even be a monad, there has to be something
that's not ;-)  (kinda like Schueler's I & Not-I)

>>
>>>Oh that's true, but the way to do that WITHOUT being sophomoric is to ask
>>>the other person "What do you mean by......?"
>>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean here...so, What *do* you mean by the above?
>
>I mean that in order to agree on word meanings we each of us have to ask the
>other what he means by a word that seems questionable in any way. O.K.?
>>

Yep.

>
>As one can clearly see from the wreckage, so did I! I got a little message
>saying "no room in memory for this text". But I am enjoying this discussion.
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>>

Sorry I had to snip some more away.  I didn't have much time to respond
today but wanted to respond to what I felt the most important.  I'm really
enjoying the converstation myself.

Chris

From coallen@cris.com Tue Jun 25 23:59:03 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Allen 
Message-Id: <199606252359.TAA15084@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: science + religion = theosophy

I'm curious as to how "process" theosophists (such as Alexis) view the
"science+religion=theosophy" theme.

Chris

From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Jun 25 23:47:11 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:47:11 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606260053.UAA09903@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: To: JRC, Re: Tourists & Pilgrims

Dear John,

I don't agree with your picture. You say
>miniscule percentage of the population that happens to want to study a
>particular and obscure set of books are "pilgrims", and that theosophy
>needs to *protect* itself from that huge majority that (gasp) may
>actually believe *other* books - or for that matter, may not read at all

That's not the distinction I'd make between tourists & pilgrims. My idea has
very little to do with what set of dusty or paper back books you read, or
maybe none at all, mine has more to do with a dilettante vs. a serious
seeker. I've known a number of people who came to our lodge meetings who
just played with the material we were focusing on, which was very diverse, &
a few who tried to find the deeper meanings in what we were studying. We
never even studied HPB, or Besant, or CWL. I remember doing Hodson, &
Krishnamurti, out of body experiences, sacred geometry & biofeedback. For
some of us, knowledge deepened, others just said "isn't that interesting"
and went on.

Liesel

From eldon@theosophy.com Wed Jun 26 09:04:39 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:04:39 -0700
From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626090439.006d44f4@beta.webcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Core Teachings (re JS comments to Dan)

Jerry S:

[writing to Dan]

>>Has Eldon defined what the core teaching on psychism is?
>	Yes.  It is wrong, evil, dangerous, and not to be used.

Huh? That's not what I've been saying. The psychic is neutral,
not evil. Psychical abilities are neither a milestone indicating
spiritual progress, nor are they a sign of degeneracy. They
are neutral, only becoming bad if their importance is over
dramatized and they unbalance one's life, when they become
"psychic intoxication".

They are unnecessary for spiritual progress, although they
will arise on their own as one gets sufficiently advanced.
They are not bad per se, but the most direct, in my opinion,
approaches to the Path involve down playing, if not shutting
them down. This does not apply to people in general, people
not approaching the Path, nor to people involved in some
spiritual discipline that makes controlled or judicious use
of the siddhis (psychic powers) -- so it is not a general
rule.

>>What writers has he based this definition on?
>	Judge and G de P.  HPB practiced it herself.  She
>wanted it out of the TS's, but otherwise had little against it.

She speaks of dangers of psychism in many places, and there's
also mention of it in "The Mahatma Letters". Her concern, I
think, was regarding the craving for phenomena and powers by
people without the slightest notion of what the spiritual and
the Path were about. This was in a time of a rising interest
in Spiritualism. She may have wanted to get people more
concerned with their inner development.

There's nothing wrong with the scientific investigation of
the paranormal. We have organizations dedicated to it, like
the Society for Psychical Research. It's just that with
Theosophy we have something more. We have a connection,
albeit tenuous, with the living Wisdom Tradition, and have
the opportunity to participate in something special, something
not available everywhere, to everyone. Like any
opportunity in life, we can seize it when it aries, or let
it pass, and lose our chance to make real progress. Who
can say when again we'll have the same opportunity to be
exposed to fragments of the actual Mysteries, outside the
closed Temple doors?

-- Eldon

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 00:50:26 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 01:50:26 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Request to ALL
In-Reply-To: <199606251534.LAA08046@leo.vsla.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606251534.LAA08046@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson"
 writes
>At the risk of getting flamed for asking this, would y'all
>please make your personal insults in personal e-mail?

I second the motion.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 02:30:14 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:30:14 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626023014.006ba454@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Joy Mills and I

In the last day or so, I, reacting to seeing Joy Mills up to her old tricks
("Tourists and Pilgrims") responded by saying something about her that so
far two of you have taken exception to. Well, I have a story to tell you
all, and you'll see why it's probably odd I said nothing worse. I have
nothing but contempt for the woman but she richly earned it.

This began back in 1973 when the Convention of California Sections of the
TSA was being held in San Francisco. I was, at the time, Vice President of
the San Francisco Lodge and Vice President of the Northern California
Federation of the TSA. We all got together to make it the very best possible
gathering. The group wanted to do something that would draw public attention
to the convention and the society, and so as we all felt that it would be
consonant with the "Three Objects" I was appointed (along with my partner)
to create a public event to celebrate spiritual diversity. What we came up
with was "The Science and Spirit Exposition". We rented "The Palace of Fine
Arts" in San Francisco and invited speakers on topics related to the "three
objects" from not only California but all over the world. We also invited
organizations whose work was obviously "Three Objects" related to
participate in booths. We requested that Joy Mills who was going to be
present for the convention anyway speak to the general public, and we also
requested a sheaf of membership applications for people who were interested
by the event and drawn to the organization which sponsored it.

Well you'd have thought we'd asked her to dance naked in the park! I still
am astonished at the incredible stream of anger and vituperation which
descended on our heads. The first thing that happened was Joy Mills
absolutely refused (very impolitely) to speak to the public. Our request for
membership applications was scornfully dismissed on the grounds that we
"obviously" had no idea what Theosophy was all about" and we were dismissed
as some kind of fools. We were ordered to accept the fact that The Northern
California Federation could not sponsor the event. We were also told to
cancel it. We refused to do so because we,personally had already spent a lot
of money on the event. My Partner and I were subjected to a campaign of
calumny and slander orchestrated by Joy Mills and her friends in the E.S. We
were accused of all sorts of imaginary intended crimes, we were accused of
plotting to "take the money and run" and then in the next breath, we were
accused of being a pair of incompetents who were going to lose out shirts
and everyone else's. Members were sent "scare letters" with these an other
accusations. and the Northern Federation reluctantly withdrew it's support.

Nonetheless, some of the local members and my Partner John Wise and I
sponsored the event, and it was an enormous success. The convention was a
total flop because most of the people who would have gone to it came to our
event. This was not anything we planned because it was planned to be part of
the Convention and not competitive to it. However, after Joy and associates
got through with us we had an existing event that could only go on as
planned, and, of course it competed with the Society's convention. It made a
hefty profit which would have gone to the society but instead went to put on
another exposition in the south Bay.

They weren't finished with me though. Shortly thereafter I ran for President
of the Northern California Federation and once again the E.S. embarked on a
campaign of slander and innuendo, this time based upon my "unacceptable
life-style". John and I resigned from the Society and many other people did too.

And that my friends is why I called Joy Mills an "arrogant bitch". I don't
retract it.

alexis dolgorukii

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 01:07:03 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:07:03 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: <+Gy7pMA30I0xEwai@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: science + religion = theosophy??
In-Reply-To: <199606252359.TAA15084@darius.cris.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606252359.TAA15084@darius.cris.com>, Christopher Allen
 writes
>I'm curious as to how "process" theosophists (such as Alexis) view the
>"science+religion=theosophy" theme.
>
>Chris

Makes no sense to me at all, whatever you call it. Science+religion is
an amalgamation of two impossible terms.

There are sciences, and there are religions.  "Science" is an
abstraction, and "Religion" is an abstraction - but then so is
"Theosophy" in its proper meaning.

Let me put my point of view simply "Apples+oranges=apples+oranges."

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 Wed Jun 26 03:56:04 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:56:04 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960625235602_143080093@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Opportunity

Alex,
I can understand why you would be pissed at Joy,  I would be too in your
positon, but in truth, my experience with her has been somewhat different.  I
have disagreed publicly with her for years with no ill effects and Gerda and
she have had some real brawls, but seem to make up afterwards.
1973 was a long time ago.  Maybe she's mellowed with age.
Then again, maybe not.  We'll find out very soon.

Chuck the Heretic

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 26 06:17:17 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 01:17:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Any one who reads Old Dairy Leaves and other historical material relating
to the early days of TS and the Founders, will find that in addition to
their activities of propagating Theosophy, they were involved in
activities that help the common people. As soon as the HQ was moved to
Madras, HPB was instrumental in starting two schools to teach Sanskrit.
Olcott setup the first Panchama School near Adyar to educate the children
of the untouchable class who lived in slums. Later on HSO was active in
reviving Buddhism in Ceylon as well as starting a net work of Buddhist
Schools. In the days of Annie Besant, she was involved in many activities
in India. Apart from her political activities for self rule for India,
she was responsible for setting up the High School in Benares which later
became Benares University. In addition she was instrumental in getting a
network of schools started all over India to educate the youth of India.
She also started the Indian Scout Movement (and was the first
Commissioner) when the then Scout Movement would not admit the natives.
The next major activity that needs to be mentioned is the revival of
Indian Dance by Rukmini Arundale and her enormous effort to prevent
cruelty to animals. It is these kinds of practical application of
Theosophical Principles to the needs of the people that attracted many
people to Theosophy and TS. Some became members and some did not. Even
those who did not formally join, did benefit from their exposure to
Theosophy and such exposure got reflected in the good many of these
people did to their fellow humans.

I am wondering why, the TS leaders who followed the above, did not think
it either necessary or important to be active in activities directly
affecting the fellow humans. While TS does not get officially involved
in any of the above activities, the leading members did get involved in
their personal capacity setting an example to other members of TS.

Writing, lecturing, meeting, meditating, publishing etc are creditable
activities. But something more than that may be help TS.

While I am not privy to any of the thinking of the General Council on
these matters over the several decades, it would be very interesting to
know if there was a deliberate plan for the TS to get less and less
involved with the public at large.

This is just loud thinking and would like to brainstorm.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss




From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 23:12:35 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:12:35 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Welcome
Mime-Version: 1.0


THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Carol Ward!

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Jun 26 12:31:50 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:31:50 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606261337.JAA09646@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>To: liesel@dreamscape.com
>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 01:30:40 +0300
>From: Kay Ziatz 
>Reply-To: Kay Ziatz 
>Subject: yours of 22/VI
>
>Hello!
>
>L> But, as I said, I have a copy, & I don't use it a lot, so
>L> would be glad to mail it to you, if you give me a snail mail address I
>can
> Thank You very much, indeed. By the way, i didn't know the term "snail
>mail".
>I've studied German in school, so my vocabulary is poor. But it doesn't
>mean
>that i know German better than English. Very often i know german word but
>no similiar english one, as you see, but i can't speak & understand. I one
>knows 1000 english words, he can speak and understand, but if he knows
>even
>3000 german, he can't :)
>
>L> get through to him. It's different with letters. Many of them don't get
>It's because some people send dollars from US, so thiefs steal entire bags
>from post offices, and they dispose all the bag after removing money
>though most letters didn't contain any.
>
>L> Food packages often don't get through either.
>As far I know, food packages are completely forbidden by custom rules.
>
>L> You can send me something towards the postage, or else, something
>L> Russian in exchange, if you'd like.
>I think there'll be no use of russian books for you ;)
>Do you like music? I can send to you some cassetes with russian jazz music
>(of Stalin times, for illustration) and a music of east-european countries
>which is completely unknown in USA, i think. Russian music somtimes pene-
>trates to USA, but bulgarian, czechoslovakian and polish - don't, i think.
>I don't promise, anyway, because custom rules are very strict - so i
>couldn't
>send floppies to Ukraine.
>
>L> IU don't give our library any theosophical books. They hardly know what
>L> theosophy is.
>But what will be consequences if you try? We here have a big experience
>of propaganda, because we learned it in soviet times. Adding to catalogue
>+ to bookshelf looks most simple, but it only possible if you have an
>access to computer-based catalogue or it it isn't still computerized.
>We tried audiocassetes, too, but it affects onhy definite people which
>you have selected.
>
>L> Most of the other women on the Committee are Catholic, &
>Have you tried introduce them to "esoterical christianity", of cource
>skipping most "heretic" ideas like reincarnation? Have you read "Letters
>from a Living Dead Man" by E. Barker? I think this book is very good as
>introductory for those who haven't firm beliefs, especially children
>who may still remember their previous lives.
>
>L> having a study group for a while. That worked as long as I did
>everything.
>Here groups like yours normally fail, too. So our work is normally person-
>oriented. Most easy way is scanning & widespreading theosophical
>literature
>via networks, for people could read it personally. "Lay a book of Teaching
>on a crossroad" (Agni-yoga).  Literally, this advise sounds foolish, but
>in the age of network communications it gets a new meaning.
>
>L> The Mahatmas directing the workers' movements, sound to me like Comrade
>L> Stalin again. We say that they're busy doing their own thing, until a
>person
>It's one of their "own thing" as Bailey writes. There was a discussion
>about Nelson Mandela in theos-l, but who knows, maybe he was directed by
>the Brotherhood, like founders of USA were.
>
>L> him the right way for him. The chela still and always has choices.
>There's another type of partnership, for less advansed people.
>Here Master works with higher Self of a man, which agrees to collaborate,
>still lower person may don't know about it.
>
>L> You say a government should raise taxes & supervise security.
>I _never_ said this! I wrote _collect_, not raise. Taxes in Russia are
>so high, that if thiefs paid taxes, they would lead to bancrupcy, too :(
>Manufacturers do survive only because they hide a part of profit and
>use so called "barter" (one good for another without money).
>
>L> well, or can't make enough profit. For instance, I wish our government
>would
>L> have socialized medicine. I know some of the problems, so I would have
>the
>L> patients choose their own health provider, & create some competition,
>some
>Yes, this medicine is fittest for a _mass_. As Bailey writes, there's two
>types of deseases: deseases originated from nature of matter - syphilis,
>tuberculosis, etc. These are deseases of those, whose higher selfs do
>control
>matter still very little. These are deseases of working class, and
>medicine
>like soviet heals it satisfactory. Second type of deseases originates from
>soul control via chakras. It prevails over matter nature in intellegent
>people
>- control is strong enough but isn't still perfect. These are heart
>deseases,
>nervous deseases, etc. "Mass medicine" can't heal it. Because each desease
>is individual here, when originated from soul nature, so the personal
>doctor
>is required.
>  I should note that it isn't literally what Bailey wrote, it's my
>understan-
>ding of Bailey.
>
>L> by another", he wasn't talking about a true democracy. A true democracy
>is
>L> of the people, by the people & for the people. I'm not saying that's
>what
>His main thought was that when state persists, real democracy is
>impossible.
>His plan was destroy capitalists by state apparatus and then abolish a
>state.
>Wild folks don't have a state, so commies belived that it returns on a new
>whirl of spiral. (They, like theosophists, believe in spiral evolution).
>Stalin & Lenin were called (i don't know an english word for it) -
>Fuehrer,
>Duce. These words in Russian mean the same thing, as a tribe chief. Even
>the
>terms are returned from a stone age.
>
>L> I was thinking about what I would like to have seen changed when
>L> your country was the Soviet Union.
>This possibility was lost. You probably know what happened in Praha in
>1968.
>Their leader Dubczek tried to build "socialism with a human face".
>Hruschov
>tried reforms, too, but he made a lot of errors and was disposed.
>
>L> seen the economy run locally rather than being planned from Moscow,
>where
>Hruschov tried it. He introduced so called Sovnarhoz - council of people's
>economy. In each district there were two of them - industrial &
>agricultural
>one. There were MTS's - Motor-Tractor Stations. Little kolhoz's couldn't
>have own agricultural technique, so it was concentrated & serviced in MTS,
>used by kolhozs and then returned to the MTS. I've heard that USA borrowed
>this idea because it was very useful for little farmers. Unfortunately,
>MTS's
>were dissolved many years ago and our farmers haven't this support.
>
>L> I'm not sure about how full your cultural life was, because certain
>things,
>L> & certain peopole were always prohibited. I read Alexander Solzhenitsin
>a
>L> long time before you could. And certain composers and artists weren't
>Who _did want_ they read. My parents have read his books. His most famous
>tale "One day of Ivan Denisovich" was officially published in 60's.
>Other his books were copied illegally. I've heard it by foreign radio,
>but i've found him dull. He was popular only because he was prohibited.
>Now everyone forgot him. His ideology is very oldfashioned - it was old-
>fashioned even 30 years ago. He calls us to XIX century. Of course, many
>really good things were prohibited, too. Here i mean personally Solzheni-
>tzin.
>
>L> I didn't realize that Lenin had doner away with all art. How dreary!
>It wasn't completely destroyed. There still were "collective ruling" and
>cultural minister might think differently from Lenin. But Lenin sponcored
>movie industry. "The most important art for us now is a cinema" - he said.
>Theater was local and useless for propaganda, still one movie should be
>run all over the country. He forced the radio, too. In 1920's soviet
>electronic industry was most advansed in the world. The first _voice_
>transmission was made from USSR. There was only telegraph radio before.
>But receivers were satisfactory and german operators were highly surpri-
>zed when heard the human voice from their receivers which received only
>beep signals before.
>
>L> I haven't seen "Sledge Hammer".
>It's about a brave policeman, who never thinks but always uses a gun.
>The criminals catched him and tried to make from him a zombie.
>"They failed, because i have no subconsciousness!" - he said.
>
>L> It sounds like you think a lot of Ledbedh. Let's hope
>Not very much, but i sure that he's not corrupted.
>
>L> I ersonally think he tried his best to stop the worst of the slide USSR
>was
>In 1985 it wasn't very bad. But in 1985-90 all gold storage was spent.
>We knew about it only in 1992. And he was very illiterate man. You've
>heard his speeches in translation, but in original they were dreadful.
>We even couldn't understand, how interpreters translate it, because
>some sentences had no meaning at all. Really, he's wife ruled the country.
>
>L> You need to know how to merchandise your product.
>Unfortunately, we can produce only world-class weapon :(
>And USA, of course, interfere to find the markets.
>There are some high technologies, but they are too specific
>
>
>
>With best wishes, Konstantin.
>
>
>

From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 23:25:00 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:25:00 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626192500_225740478@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

Doss,
Being involved with scouting is not something to be accounted to anyones'
good reputation.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 23:25:50 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:25:50 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626192550_225741137@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alan,
Excellent, but for the god's sake don't let her build a labyrinth.  One bout
with the Minotaur was enough.

Theseus
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 18:54:46 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:54:46 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <14DxpEA2dY0xEw5T@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: All Pilgrims
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960625185251.006c8180@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960625185251.006c8180@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>
>>> That's right on! Joy Mills is an arrogant bitch!
>>
.. and Bee responds

>>And so are you. There is no need for this sort of rudeness

I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.

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 Jun 26 18:47:15 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:47:15 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <$oiz9AAzWY0xEwYj@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Dynamic groups ....
In-Reply-To: <199606260113.VAA22035@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606260113.VAA22035@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f.
deutsch"  writes
>I don't think
>that one person doing everything is conducive to having a dynamic group.
>When you prepapre a talk, you learn, when you participate in a group your
>interest awakens more. My pap feeding the rest of them isn't my idea of what
>should be. It doesn't work in the long run

I think you are right.  It may be that the decline of the T.S. is in
part, at least, due to its members being spoon-fed in their Lodges.  So
many seem to offer nothing more than a) Lecturers telling you what it is
all about, and b) Group leaders telling you what it is all about.

Here and there, no doubt, there may be some groups working *as groups*
to share in the gathering and use of experience, but I have not seen
much of it.  Groups of this kind are non-hierarchical, and do not offer
much food for ego-trippers.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 01:53:38 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:53:38 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: TI Web Page
Mime-Version: 1.0


Theosophy International has been offered 5MB of Web space.  Members are
invited to offer suggestions as to the best use to be made of this, not
forgetting a layout which will appeal to surfers.

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 Wed Jun 26 04:05:40 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 22:05:40 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960626023014.006ba454@pop.slip.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

To RI & BB & others ...
	I also must say the my personal experience with Joy Mills was
hardly positive. I met her only once. I was a speaker at a Wheaton Summer
Convention ... speaking on "TS 2000" - and was trying to outline a vsion
for the TS ... not just theory, but a good number of practical
suggestions. Problem was, most of them had to do with opening the TS ...
to attempting to greatly increase both the presence of the TS in the
world, and suggeesting far greater interaction between current members.
It took a good couple of years of intense work to work the ideas out -
many of them taken from other successful organizations and adapted to the
TS.
	Gave the talk at the convention. It was received with something
close to excitement by most of the audience - and great disdain by the
leadership. Joy Mills came up to me afterwards, introduced herself, said
"I *don't* agree with you" ... and simply turned around and walked away.
	I little realized at the time that (in retrospect) most of my
ideas had to do with opening the TS to "tourists" - being, as I was, too
unevolved to understand that theosophy is only for the Special People.
	But my first and only meeting with Ms. Mills did not exactly
strike me as a contact with a "saint". Dorothy Abbenhouse was exceedingly
gracious (she was President at the time) - even though she also disagreed
with most of the ideas. Joy was just outright rude - came up with no
other apparent purpose other than to take a quick shot (not a word of
*why* she disagreed ...) - as though any thoughts I had were simply
beneath her notice ... and she just wanted to make sure I *knew* they
were beneath her notice.
	In critisizing her "tourist/pilgrim" paradigm - I am, at least,
acknowledging her thoughts to be worth the trouble to discourse upon. But
neither my personal contact with her (quite different than Richard's
experience) nor her ideas (which was all *I* was critisizing in my own
post) strike me as anything but fairly good demonstrations of the mindset
that has reduced the TS to a fairly miniscule and ineffectual
organization with very little hope of accomplishing its Objects in any
substantive way in the larger world.
								-JRC
From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 26 05:53:10 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:53:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: MK Ramadoss 
Message-Id: <199606260553.AAA01672@natashya.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Internet and Theosophy/TS

I read with great interest the accounts of incidents that Alexis and JRC. No
matter what one thinks or how one interprets them, the basic fact is that
they are true facts and are of interest to some of us who are interested in
TS and Theosophy.

Once again, we are seeing the power of Internet. Theos-l has provided us
with an medium for all of us to exchange information and such flow of
information is not practical with the outmoded print medium, not to mention
about the control over what gets in the print medium and what does not.

It is also very interesting to note that none of the present or past elected
officials are to be seen nowhere in any of these theos lists. One wonders
why?  Internet newsgroups and maillists can be ignored. They are not going
to go away.

Let us hope and pray that the official establishment jumps on the bandwagon
and makes the best use of the newsgroups and maillists for the cause of
Theosophy and TS. I wish HPB were here to engage all of us in the most
brilliant manner like what she did with the print medium of her day.


From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 06:03:41 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:03:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626060341.006cd7a4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Mail order Theosophy

At 06:16 PM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>A>Now, you and I disagree almost entirely on most things,
>
>Do we?

Well, so far as we've gone,at least. Not "everything" I am sure!
>
>

>
>
>	Maybe you're drawing this conclusion a bit too hastily.
>You hardly know my opinion of Theosophy, just a little bit of it.
>Even when you've studied my articles on Theosophy (which you
>probably didn't - did you?) - even then you know only a little bit
>of what I actually think and feel about these things.
>I would be careful with drawing conclusions so hastily.

You're surely right about drawing conclusions too hastily. I started out
fighting with people I am now closest with; and my life partner and I spent
the first three of our twenty five years together fighting about theosophy
and politics. But we haven't had another fight in twenty two years (I guess
we got it all out of our system). Now, I did read your article (7 jewels of
Theosophy) and more than that, I saved it and printed it and read it again!
Now, it represents, to me, exactly what I feel is wrong with the "Core
theosophy", BUT, it is an extremely good presentation of that philosophy. I
just don't happen to agree with it. You did me a service by the way, I took
the opportunity to send a copy to each of my students with the request that
they give me their opinion of it.
>
>
>A> our discussions are interesting and I, at least,
>enjoy them. This is equally true with Christopher Allen, he too disagrees
>strongly with almost everything I say, and visa versa. But like my present
>discussions with you there's no hostility either way and I think that in
>time the discussions will be productive if only in that we three will each
>be able to make our individual cases more clearly.
>
>
>Well, maybe we can learn from each other? At least I hope so.

Martin: I have always believed I learn not only from my students but from
everyone I meet. I'll surely learn from you, and I am learning much from
Chris Allen. I think, that in a peculiar way, I have even learned something
from Bjorn. It's a negative lesson to be sure, but a lesson all the same.
>
>A> I have a problem with people who are, or rather, who
>claim to be, "good buddies" with "The Master Jesus". Bjorn doesn't like me
>because I made statements that invalidated both Elisabeth Clair "Prophet"
>and Mr. Ballard, whom I believe to be (in Ballard's case...to have been)
>strictly con-artists and phonies.
>
>
>	Well, I've read one book by ECP and was not very much impressed.
> But I would not be quick to ridicule another one's experiences, however
> unlikely these may seem .

Martin: I wasn't at all ridiculing Bourn's experiences, I was attempting to
tell him mine, but he rejected them as firmly as I reject his "friendship
with the Master Jesus". For instance I knew Elisabeth and her husband Mark
before he died and she turned into what she is now. Their name was NOT
"Prophet" but Probbert. Bjorn refuses to believe this, saying he's seen
Mark's Birth certificate. But we al know how very easy false birth
certificates are to obtain. I also find it interesting that they feel the
need to have a birth certificate to show people if Mark was actually born
with the name he was given on his death. Mr. Ballard's (He founded the "I
am" Movement) troubles with the law are a matter of public record. I didn't
make them up. I think Bjorn's extreme sensitivity on these subjects is in
direct proportion to his insecurities. Anyway, I won't have anything further
to do with him, or say to him. I just don't feel it would be productive.
>
>A> Now I've also said that I have some
>problems with GdeP's attitude (racist) and his writings, but I have never
>felt him to be a con-artist or a phoney. I just don't agree with much that
>he had to say just as I don't agree with much that you have to say.
>
>	Well, that's your right. I don't see GdeP having a racist attitude
>though, but that's a matter of different opinions.

His view of Blacks as an inferior (junior) species is clearly racist. Now,
his whole period was wildly racist, but he should have, if he was what
people claim he was, been above that kind of harmful nonsense.
>
>A> But I will tell the truth as I see it.
>
>
>Of course, everybody should do that and in my opinion it should be done
>in such a way as to not hurt another one's feelings.

I have a question Martin: How can one tell a person the truth, if telling
the truth means your going to tell that person you think they're wrong, and
that will clearly hurt their feelings?
>
>
>Martin
>
>
alexis>

From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 26 06:17:17 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 01:17:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Any one who reads Old Dairy Leaves and other historical material relating
to the early days of TS and the Founders, will find that in addition to
their activities of propagating Theosophy, they were involved in
activities that help the common people. As soon as the HQ was moved to
Madras, HPB was instrumental in starting two schools to teach Sanskrit.
Olcott setup the first Panchama School near Adyar to educate the children
of the untouchable class who lived in slums. Later on HSO was active in
reviving Buddhism in Ceylon as well as starting a net work of Buddhist
Schools. In the days of Annie Besant, she was involved in many activities
in India. Apart from her political activities for self rule for India,
she was responsible for setting up the High School in Benares which later
became Benares University. In addition she was instrumental in getting a
network of schools started all over India to educate the youth of India.
She also started the Indian Scout Movement (and was the first
Commissioner) when the then Scout Movement would not admit the natives.
The next major activity that needs to be mentioned is the revival of
Indian Dance by Rukmini Arundale and her enormous effort to prevent
cruelty to animals. It is these kinds of practical application of
Theosophical Principles to the needs of the people that attracted many
people to Theosophy and TS. Some became members and some did not. Even
those who did not formally join, did benefit from their exposure to
Theosophy and such exposure got reflected in the good many of these
people did to their fellow humans.

I am wondering why, the TS leaders who followed the above, did not think
it either necessary or important to be active in activities directly
affecting the fellow humans. While TS does not get officially involved
in any of the above activities, the leading members did get involved in
their personal capacity setting an example to other members of TS.

Writing, lecturing, meeting, meditating, publishing etc are creditable
activities. But something more than that may be help TS.

While I am not privy to any of the thinking of the General Council on
these matters over the several decades, it would be very interesting to
know if there was a deliberate plan for the TS to get less and less
involved with the public at large.

This is just loud thinking and would like to brainstorm.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss




From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 06:42:50 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:42:50 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626064250.006d9e3c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

At 06:17 PM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>

>
>	Well, that's your opinion of course. My opinion is quite different.
>Regarding G de P: if you had really studied his writings you would see
>that most of it deals with elaborating the ideas of HPB, and I wouldn't
>exactly call it 'sidelining' her.

Well, I own, and have studied the writings of G de P and while they are
loosely based on HPB, they are his INTERPRETATIONS of what she had to say,
and while they are infinitely more intellectual and sane than Leadbeater's
versions of HPB, she I am sure would be very surprised by what he says she
said. G do P used Yelena Blavatskaya as a "podium" upon which to present his
personal views. Now, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having and
presenting one's own perceptions, I certainly do so proudly, but I do see
something wrong with presenting one's own views as those of another, and
more famous person. See what I mean?
>
>
>M>What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.
>
>A>And a serious question deserves a serious answer: A Ceremonial Magician
>utilizes ritual, which is a complicated construct of sensory input, to focus
>his/her will and the acquiescent wills of those who may be present, in an
>attempt to change reality in conformity with that will.
>>
>
>	Sensory input like what?

Martin: Go to a Roman Catholic High Mass or better yet an Eastern Orthodox
High Mass and you will see a perfect demonstration of what I mean by "a
construct of sensory input"...colours, lights, sounds, scents, a "battering"
of the senses to produce what is essentially "sensory overload" which cause
the celebrant, and the people present to reach a different level of
consciousness/awareness. Ceremony or Ritual is a very complicated art form.
Now when that art form is officiated over by a celebrant who has the ability
to direct his/her will in a totally controlled manner, the result is
ceremonial magic.
>
>
>
>M>Well, I think that  a really good healer should be able to heal people
>>with AIDS, so that's not a problem with me. If the word is spread your
>>house may be flooded with AIDS-patients (then you will be faced with
>>problems of how to deal with too many patients).
>
>A>I wouldn't find it a problem, I can train others to do what I do very
>quickly, and I think there's be no better healer than one who was healed.
>The only thing that "bothers" me at all, is that in two of the cases,
>they're back at their old haunts doing just what they did to get sick in the
>first place.
>
>
>  That's the dilemma a healer is faced with: do I accept only patients
>who are willing to understand the causes of their disease (with the help
>of the healer) or just every patient that comes along?

I accept any and every patient that comes along. It is not my place to "pick
and choose", but I do think I can complain about them when they are hurting
themselves.
>
>
>
>M>>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>>>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>>>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>>>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.
>
>A>Oh that's quite true, I just would be very careful as to what "frame of
>reference" I used.
>
>	Indeed. I'm choosing a frame of reference that is an intrinsic
>part of the age-old Wisdom tradition. You, on the other hand, dismiss
>this frame of reference without giving strong arguments against it
>(maybe you do in your book). So, you leave me in the dark as to why
>exactly you don't find it an appropriate frame of reference.

I do give them in my book. But I am rejecting them because as a teacher I
have come to know that the young people in this country refuse absolutely to
listen to what they call "all that old crap". Once again, though Martin, I
must say that what you call the "Age-old Wisdom Tradition" I fear because it
is so closely tied with various religions, and as you know I reject religion
as the greatest oppressive force in human history. I call it "The Platonic
Lineage" in my writings even though Plato only re-stated it and did not
originate it. But who would know what I am talking about if I called it the
"Heritage of the Keltoi" or the "Thalian Lineage"?it would both be far more
accurate.


>
>
>
>>A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
>>"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
>>fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
>>today's young people.
>>
>
>M>Never had one complaint about that. I wonder whether others have some
>>experience with that. The necessity of presenting a framework doesn't
>>disappear with that, however.
>
>A>I have a feeling that perhaps your speech in your own language is not as
>'flowery" as it is in a language that isn't your first one.
>
>
>	I don't think the style of my articles is flowery at all.
>Maybe you should read them, if you didn't do that already, and then point
>out what's so flowery about it. The only flowery expression is 'seven
>jewels of wisdom' and that happens to be a translation of Sapta-Ratnani
>(Sanskrit compound), the old name for the seven jewels teachings.

Wait a minute. What other articles? The only one I've seen is & jewels.
Please elucidate.

>
>A>And yes a
>framework is important but it had best be a valid one, and there's
>altogether too much about "Core Theosophy" that is anything BUT valid.
>That's my opinion of course.
>
>	Of course. But I do not count Leadbeater's teachings as 'Core
>Theosophy'.
>
>
>M>I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.
>
>A>Oh please do! If you'd put it that way in the first place we'd have a
>broader basis to stand on.
>
>	Well, I could present  a reformulation, one by one, but slowly
>as it takes some time to do so.

O.K. I'll take my hard copy and prepare something point by point and then
send it to you.
>
>A> My view is that there is no such thing
>as "divinely ordered truth" and that what I am seeking is not so much
>"truth" as an understanding of abstract realities. For that is what "truth"
>means to me......."abstract realities".
>
>	Don't you see order and structure in this universe?
>And don't you acknowledge the existence of spiritual beings (angels,
> etc.)? Last time I asked you, you evaded this question.

Did I? I'm sorry. I have no reason to evade that question. I am, as you know
an active Shaman, and so I relate very strongly to non-physical
intelligences, especially as I view the Unified Field as one vast
conglomeration of intelligence nexii...BUT I do not believe in "God" or
"Dieties" or "Angels" in the religious sense of the term. As to structure
and order? Well I view it this way the Cosmos goes from chaotic disorder
through an increasing period of orderliness on to a condition I call
harmonious disorder. It's spirilic.
>
>
>A>What sort of degree?
>
>	Roughly equivalent to bachelor (a bit more than that I think).
>
>A>
> I know too may people who would not accept your presentation of
>quantum Theory as a "measurement process" and nothing more.
>
>	A matter of opinion. Feynman, one of the greatest physicists
>of this century and the one who developed the most successful theory
>in physics (quantum-electrodynamics) also held this opinion.
>Good company :)
The trouble with akademe is this: I asked a quantum physicist friend of mine
(3 phd's) about Feynman and he said "Oh Gawd, not him!"
>
>A> Second I am told
>that you should have said that "some Physicists are flabbergasted" and not
>implied that they all are.
>
>	You're nitpicking here. My God, your own style of writing
> is abundant with things I can nitpick on (and maybe rightfully so)
>in infinitely larger degree.

No, I am told that wasn't nitpicking.
>
>
>A> Lastly everyone knows (I assume that if I do,
>everyone does) that there are basic assumptions in Relativity Theory that
>are wrong, Einstein himself acknowledged that.
>
>	Get real, Alexis, most people know nothing of RT at all!

Martin> I meant most people who know what RT is, most people don't know
anything about anything. The Human Race is composed primarily of Quasi-monkeys!


>
>The most funny thing about RT is, BTW, that the Lorentz-transformations
>have never been deduced from first principles successfully. Einstein
>made an error in his first derivation, which was acknowledged later
>on, but despite a price being offered to people who would correctly
>deduce these transformations nobody succeeded (I doubt whether
>someone has succeeded thus far). All the deductions are wrong, because
>these can be shown to involve a type of 0.something =0.some other thing
>equations (physicists consistently made errors with vector signs)
>Maybe you don't believe me, but I studied the matter. Some physicists
>have found the errors in the deductions. There findings are ignored,
>however, because RT formulae seem to work. In textbooks, the formulae
>are typically just given without any attempt to deduce them (I don't
>know all textbooks on RT of course, but I'm talking about those I've seen)
>
So the equations are wrong but they work! And you say there is order in the
cosmos. No, the Csomos is utterly chaotic and Heisenberg was right, and that
proves is >

> A>But no matter what, I think
>our modern sciences at this point in time are far more in resonance with a
>"roll of the dice" theory than they are with "divine ordinance".
>
>	But sciences will discover new facts (have already) and will
>have to change their theories.

Yes, that's true but it happens so frequently it makes life very interesting.
>
>
>>A> I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
>>effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
>>a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
>>beings.
>
>
>	Sounds good. Only, I am pretty sure that we all are part and parcel
>of a greater whole (Oversoul), so I wouldn't separate cosmos from
>humankind. My experience indicates indeed that the unit (human being)
>is embedded in a larger whole but the exact relations and implications
>are not fully clear to me. So, I cannot fully agree with your statement,
>but would consider it as an undecided issue (for me, that is).
>
>
>M>Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize this conception too, but I am
>>convinced that there is Order in this universe, however it may be
>>working. What is your view on order and structure in this universe?
>>And how is it related to the equilibrium you're talking about in the
>>previous paragraph?
>>
(see above)>
>(I keep the above question in this reply. It is vital for my understanding
>of your ideas about cosmos and man's place therein)
>
>
>
>A>Thought patterns (egregores) are entirely speculative and hypothetical, I
>should hate to base our world society on hypothesis.
>
>
>	Of course, nobody is saying that we should. But it may be not
>a speculation for all of us. And, contrary to what you say, world
>society *is* based on hypotheses or rather points of view. In the middle
>ages people though that the world was flat and many were afraid to travel
>far (they might fall off the earth..). Plato says that 'ideas rule the world'
>and I think he is right. The economies of countries are partly based
>on ideas how economy works (economists may be wrong in their ideas
>and politicians may implement the wrong measures and many will suffer
>as a consequence of those ideas as I do think currently is the case)
>
You know that flat earth business is mostly a myth, all educated people
since anaxamander knew the world was round and circled the sun, and
certainly the educated classes knew it since ptolemy.> Economics is as much
of a science as astrology, sure it's ideas that rule the world, well
actually that's not true it's people who  rule the world, they use the ideas
for various purposes.

>A>Once again I acknolwedge the POSSIBILITY of the existance of egregores and
>speculative objects, to do more than that, would I submit, be mistaken.
>
>	That depends on the individual, I'd say. Someone who experiences
>that kind of things would *know* and not speculate.
>
>Martin
>
Alexis>
>

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 06:52:16 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:52:16 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626065216.006d2de4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 08:02 PM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm curious as to how "process" theosophists (such as Alexis) view the
>"science+religion=theosophy" theme.
>
>Chris
>
>
>"Process theosophy" is an entirely individual thing. I can tell you how I
regard that equation but other process hteosophists will have to tell you
what they think.

To me "Science+Religion=THEOSOPHY but not theosophy.

In "Core Theosophy" as I see it, there's an enormous amount of religion and
a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Process theosophy is a Heisenbergian
methodology whereby one uses investigation, study, and comparison to attempt
to understand all of the sciences, philosophies and religions in their
relationship to themselves and to one another, in the hope that out of all
the confusion some real knowledge will develop itself.

"Core theosophy" appears to fear the third object. But to me, as a process
theosophist, the third object is the only means to arrive at the goals of
the other two objects and fear of experience is always silly .

alexis dolgorukii

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 06:58:49 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:58:49 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626065849.006e351c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Opportunity

At 11:58 PM 6/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I can understand why you would be pissed at Joy,  I would be too in your
>positon, but in truth, my experience with her has been somewhat different.  I
>have disagreed publicly with her for years with no ill effects and Gerda and
>she have had some real brawls, but seem to make up afterwards.
>1973 was a long time ago.  Maybe she's mellowed with age.
>Then again, maybe not.  We'll find out very soon.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>But I haven't! And she may also have forgotten all about it, but I haven't!
Nor will I! As you well know I am quick to anger but equally quick to
forgive, but not in this case! John on the other hand is very slow to anger
but he, once angry, never forgives. And he's angrier at Joy than I am (yes
it is possible)! No, as far as we're concerned it's "avitchi" for her!

alex

From RAINGER@delphi.com Wed Jun 26 11:07:22 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 06:07:22 -0500 (EST)
From: RAINGER@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Information Wanted
Message-Id: <01I6CRIXHH5U8X41BM@delphi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Dear Alexis

Thanks for your message.  I think the imagination of
the Theosophical Society in England is limited solely
to abstruse intellectual games, completely out of touch
with the REAL world.

As for the Gulf magazine - it is certainly not going to
be aimed at the Islamic community, but at the ex-patriot
community of American and European origin, who are extremely
interested in esoteric teachings.

I have been working out there now - off and on - for over a year
running lectures, courses and workshops, and there is a real
need for sound teaching - as opposed to New Age gimmickry - not
that I'm knocking all New Age thinking (how could I?) but people
seem to jump onto any new manifestation e.g. aromatherapy,
rebirthing, Reiki etc, without necessarily understanding the
Universal Laws i.e. reincarnation, karma, seven principles etc.

There are some Arabs who have been educated in England and USA
who are interested in the subjects also, but obviously we will
have to be careful about what is in the magazine.

Most of the ex-pat population travel widely they are anxious to
know what events are taking place in other parts of the world so
they can participate when they arrive.  Hence my request for
information.

With all best wishes - Michael

MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
22 Prices Lane
York YO2 1AL
England

Tel:01904 670203
E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Jun 26 13:19:54 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 9:19:54 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606261319.JAA19865@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: In praise of Joy

I must add my mite here.  ES or no ES, and regardless of what
others may have experienced, my own experience is that Joy
Mills and Stephan Hoeller are the only "eminent Theosophists"
in the TSA who have publicly shown interest and a certain amount of sympathy,
rather than disdain or indifference, to the investigations reported in my
books.  Of course my appreciation is an entirely personal
matter, but I think this says something about their commitment
to "No religion higher than truth" and I am forever grateful
for their kindnesses.
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 17:32:24 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 13:32:24 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626133223_340285161@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

Alex,
Under the circumstances I would never ask you to retract anything.  I merely
point out that my experience has been different.
Clearly her behavior towards you has been unpardonable and she should be
thoroughly ashamed of herself.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 17:31:40 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 13:31:40 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626133135_340284375@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

Chris,
The idea that religion and science could be added together was a purely
Victorian concept and was based on the idea that truth was a finite quality
and once the TRUTH could be proven in a laboratory, so to speak, all humanity
would fall into line.
We see the world much differently now.  Science deals in uncertainty as much
as law and the idea of religion has been replaced by a much broader concept
of spirituality in which there are as many ways as there are people and all
are equally valid.
The simple equation of theosophy=science+religion has long since been
discredited except in the minds of the orthodox.
However, if we replace science with knowledge, we can rewrite the equation as
theosopy-knowledge=religion.

Chuck the Heretic
From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 18:31:32 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:31:32 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626183132.006ca900@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Internet and Theosophy/TS

At 02:51 AM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I read with great interest the accounts of incidents that Alexis and JRC. No
>matter what one thinks or how one interprets them, the basic fact is that
>they are true facts and are of interest to some of us who are interested in
>TS and Theosophy.
>
>Once again, we are seeing the power of Internet. Theos-l has provided us
>with an medium for all of us to exchange information and such flow of
>information is not practical with the outmoded print medium, not to mention
>about the control over what gets in the print medium and what does not.
>
>It is also very interesting to note that none of the present or past elected
>officials are to be seen nowhere in any of these theos lists. One wonders
>why?  Internet newsgroups and maillists can be ignored. They are not going
>to go away.
>
>Let us hope and pray that the official establishment jumps on the bandwagon
>and makes the best use of the newsgroups and maillists for the cause of
>Theosophy and TS. I wish HPB were here to engage all of us in the most
>brilliant manner like what she did with the print medium of her day.
>
>
>Doss:

One thing about you, you truly CARE about the movement.

I fully agree with you as to the "power of the Internet". It will, before
too long, do more in line with the First Object than any theosophical group
has EVER done. It helped prevent the Communist Coup in Russia from
succeeding, it paved the way for Prague's "Velvet Revolution" and it will,
in time, end the tyrannies of any Government, anywhere. It will also end the
tyrrany of the media. People will inform people!

As to HPB, I am afraid, Doss that were she present today, the Theosophical
Power Players would treat her very badly. Remember, there were Theosophists
in her day who were embarrassed by her and who wanted her out of the Society
because she was "un theosophical", they also said she was rude and hot
tempered, she made a specialty of saying things people didn't want to hear.
How would that go down with John Algeo or Radha Burnier? After all, I'm just
her cousin and look how they react to me. And I am nothing more than a pale
copy of her.

alexis
>

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 18:36:42 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:36:42 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626183642.006c6b30@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

At 02:52 AM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Writing, lecturing, meeting, meditating, publishing etc are creditable
>activities. But something more than that may be help TS.
>
>While I am not privy to any of the thinking of the General Council on
>these matters over the several decades, it would be very interesting to
>know if there was a deliberate plan for the TS to get less and less
>involved with the public at large.
>
>This is just loud thinking and would like to brainstorm.
>
>_______________________________________________________
>    Peace to all living beings.
>
>    M K Ramadoss
>
>Doss:

 From my point-of-view everything you wrote above is absolutely true. The
Society was once of great use in the world. I have no idea why the Society
chose to disengage from actual work benefiting humanity. It can't all be due
to embarrassment at the Krishnamurti debacle because that was far too long
ago to really matter today. This would surely be a good "thread". It's a
shame that no one with any position in the society uses the internet.

alexis


>
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 19:01:28 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:01:28 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626190128.006c6898@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Information Wanted

At 06:10 AM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Alexis
>
>Thanks for your message.  I think the imagination of
>the Theosophical Society in England is limited solely
>to abstruse intellectual games, completely out of touch
>with the REAL world.

Michael: I am afraid that's true of "Official Theosophy" wherever it exists.
The TSA is into abstruse intellectual and political games as well. Our
problem is the "Esoteric Section", is that true in England as well? Here it
would seem (and Adyar's actions seem to back the idea up) that the E.S.
want's to drive all those of us who are not members of it away. Sad.
>
>As for the Gulf magazine - it is certainly not going to
>be aimed at the Islamic community, but at the ex-patriot
>community of American and European origin, who are extremely
>interested in esoteric teachings.

I assume there are a great many ex patriots in the Gulf States..the profit
motivation is very strong. I have had friends who had the experience, it's
not all that pleasant I understand.
>
>I have been working out there now - off and on - for over a year
>running lectures, courses and workshops, and there is a real
>need for sound teaching - as opposed to New Age gimmickry - not
>that I'm knocking all New Age thinking (how could I?) but people
>seem to jump onto any new manifestation e.g. aromatherapy,
>rebirthing, Reiki etc, without necessarily understanding the
>Universal Laws i.e. reincarnation, karma, seven principles etc.

Well that's just as true here in California.
>
>There are some Arabs who have been educated in England and USA
>who are interested in the subjects also, but obviously we will
>have to be careful about what is in the magazine.

I should imagine so, there isn't a free press in that area is there?
>
>Most of the ex-pat population travel widely they are anxious to
>know what events are taking place in other parts of the world so
>they can participate when they arrive.  Hence my request for
>information.

There are a number of magazines that specialize in New Age activities and
they have far more to report than any Theosophical Group. If you like, and
don't already have it, I can send you a list.
>
>With all best wishes - Michael
>
>MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
>22 Prices Lane
>York YO2 1AL
>England
>
>Tel:01904 670203
>E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com

Best wishes

alexis dolgorukii>
>

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 19:11:06 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:11:06 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626191106.006c7700@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: In praise of Joy

At 09:25 AM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I must add my mite here.  ES or no ES, and regardless of what
>others may have experienced, my own experience is that Joy
>Mills and Stephan Hoeller are the only "eminent Theosophists"
>in the TSA who have publicly shown interest and a certain amount of sympathy,
>rather than disdain or indifference, to the investigations reported in my
>books.  Of course my appreciation is an entirely personal
>matter, but I think this says something about their commitment
>to "No religion higher than truth" and I am forever grateful
>for their kindnesses.
>
>Paul:

Now as you know I dearly love Stephan Hoeller, and have for many years. But
certainly I have never seen anything positive or sympathetic in Joy Mills.
Mostly she acts like she did with both JRC and myself. Of course she was
nice to Richard Ihle, after all he and his wife were "sitting at her feet",
totally overawed by the honor of her presence in their messy little home.
Anyone can be ice in such circumstances. I must admit that I am somewhat
astonished that she showed interest and sympathy with your books. I'd have
thought she'd have gone the way of John Algeo and company.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Wed Jun 26 19:19:15 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:19:15 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960626191915.006c1e70@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

At 01:38 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Under the circumstances I would never ask you to retract anything.  I merely
>point out that my experience has been different.
>Clearly her behavior towards you has been unpardonable and she should be
>thoroughly ashamed of herself.
>
>Chuck
>
>Chuck:

I honestly don't feel that woman is capable of shame. If she was she
wouldn't act the way she does. I'd be terribly suprised to learn that JRC
and I are the only victims of her disdain and contempt for others. I'd love
to know the details of the "deal' she made with Radha when she resigned as
International Vice President and "got" Krotona as a "consolation prize".

You say your "experience of her has been different".....but have you ever
"crossed her"? JRC and I obviously "crossed her" in the same way, we were
trying to get theosophy to reach out to a wider audience.....and she won't
countenance anything other than her "tourists and pilgrims" nonsense.

Somehow it seems tome that if one gains something from theosophy, and feels
it's valuable, one would desire to share it widely and not keep it limited
to a few.

alex

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 26 19:46:38 1996
Date: 26 Jun 96 15:46:38 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: core teachings & ruminations
Message-Id: <960626194637_76400.1474_HHL57-1@CompuServe.COM>

>	karma on astral-mental level: do you mean karma related to
>kama-manasic acts? Desire for personal success, greed, ambition, etc.
>seem to be the causal factors there, I think.
> Guilt and remorse are pseudo-realities, rather useless
>(especially remorse) I'd say. I mean these feelings/thoughts
>are in the psyche's content, but largely due to aeons of dogmatic
>theology and inadequate education.
	According to G de P, karma exists on every cosmic plane.
All of the things you mention are karma-producing, yes.  But don't
throw guilt and remorse out the window just yet.  Suppose you
did something that you believed was wrong.  You later feel guilty
whenever you think of it, and so you stop thinking of it.  But
repressed feelings don't fade away, they lurk in the unconscious
and fester, and eventually cause all kinds of problems, usually
a neurosis of some kind.  This is our personal karma.  This
example shows the fact that we can suffer from karma due to guilt
even when we never really did anything wrong, or if we magnified
the action in our minds, and so we suffer needlessly.  This is
because our memory is intricately connected with our personal
karma.  This happens all the time, because karma effects us
through our emotions and thoughts too, and it is well known in
psychology that the mind cannot always distinguish between "reality"
and "fantasy" (which is exactly why guided imagery works so well).

>	Yes, until they discover they're fooling themselves
>with these things, contenting themselves with pseudo-realities.	
	As long as we have feelings of guilt, purification
is absolutely necessary.  Once we get over the guilt, then we
can put such things behind us.

>	A ray means a manifestation, issuing forth from some source,
	OK, then a ray it is.

> Does causal plane equate with buddhi or buddhi-manas?
	This is a tricky question, and one that different
theosophists will answer in different ways.  I would say that
it is buddhi, and the mental plane is manas, mainly because
it is easier (Occam's Razor) and also because HPB says that
there is one principle associated with each plane.

>Personality is kama-manas and this is on astral/mental planes (mixed,
>I gather).
	Kama-manas implies emotions and thoughts, or affective
and cognitive functioning, and so is the personality, yes.


> Again the duality of manas is the issue here. HPB says it is
>only correctly explained in esoteric works (not very satisfying for the
>student to be left in the dark..)
	Everything, including manas, is dualistic, yes.  Buddhi-manas
is the mind looking at the highest subplanes of the mental plane and into
the causal via the intuition.  kama-manas is the mind looking at the lowest
subplanes of the mental plane and below the mental plane
into the astral via the emotions.  Manas, our thinking-principle, can look
in either direction.  It is sometimes divided into a lower manas and
higher manas for convenience in order to illustrate some point, but
we have one manas, not two.

>Did you use some technique to revive those memories?
	Guided imagery while in yogic meditation.  It is
rather easy to do.

>	Can you give names for this first one? Belongs the practice
>of OBE (astral projection) to this first category?
	Yes, OBE is a technique used here.  Probably the best
known yoga in this instance is Raja Yoga, where the physical,
astral, and mental bodies are silenced, so that consciousness
can focus in the higher bodies.  Patajali's Yoga is well known
for this.

>Where would you classify a) Hatha Yoga
	Excellent for health and physical well-being.  Not much
good for anything else.

> b) Raja/Jnana Yoga?
	Raja Yoga teaches us to silence our lower bodies, as
noted above.  The beginner is fearful, because silencing the body
and personality is equal to death, which the ego rightly fears.  But
when done successfully, there is a direct experience of that which
exists beyond our human-ness.  Jnana strives for the same goal
as Raja, but takes a completely different path.

>The practice of Hatha Yoga could effect our body, isn't it?
	That is exactly what it was designed to do, yes.

>Raja Yoga has effects on psyche and thought-pattern and maybe
>on the body too?
	Its only effects are temporary, and these are the silencing
of the body and ego so that consciousness can rise above them.
I have practiced, at one time or another, all of these except Hatha
(I have never been able to get my body into the lotus position).
I have had a degree of success with Raja, Jnana, and Kundalini
Yogas, all of which are effective when used properly.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Jun 26 19:46:40 1996
Date: 26 Jun 96 15:46:40 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: TS Flowery Verbage
Message-Id: <960626194639_76400.1474_HHL57-2@CompuServe.COM>

>A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
>"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
>fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
>today's young people.
>
Alexis, it turns me off too, and I am not so young.  As a matter of fact,
the sugary sweetness of typical TS verbage was the primary thing
that Crowley had against Theosophy.  It doesn't ring true, and
although probably well-intended, comes across as disingenuous.

Jerry S.
Member, TI

From mlevin@husc.HARVARD.EDU Wed Jun 26 20:40:16 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:40:16 -0400
From: Michael Levin 
Message-Id: <199606262040.QAA24738@husc7.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: theosophical periodicals?

Hi all -

   does anyone know of any theosophical publications
(journals or magazines)? I am looking for something more
meaty, theosophical/"occultist"-oriented than "The Quest"
(which seems to be becoming more "New Age"). Thanks,

Mike Levin
From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Jun 26 21:57:12 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:57:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: theosophical periodicals?
In-Reply-To: <199606262040.QAA24738@husc7.HARVARD.EDU>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Michael Levin wrote:

> Hi all -
>
>    does anyone know of any theosophical publications
> (journals or magazines)? I am looking for something more
> meaty, theosophical/"occultist"-oriented than "The Quest"
> (which seems to be becoming more "New Age"). Thanks,
>
> Mike Levin
>

Hi:

TS (Adyar) puts out The Theosophist from Adyar, India and various
national sections have their own magazines and there are publications
from other TS organizations. You will hear more about other publications.
TS -USA is putting out the American Theosophist, which is slender in size
and you will have look at the past issues to see if it has meaty material
to suite your taste.

BTW, after a couple of more issues Quest is likely to disappear unless a
wealthy white knight appears to rescue it. To many of us Quest fog index
was so high that I sometimes tossed it to the waste paper basket the
moment it arrived. I am not an illiterate and even I had difficulty with it.


_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 23:25:39 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:25:39 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626192536_225741039@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Internet and Theosophy/TS

Doss,
I wish the elected folks in the TS would get on these lists and alt.theosophy
as well.  The internet is not only not going to go away, it is going to reach
a hell of a lot more people than they ever will without it and as a result
they will find themselves being attacked, unjustly at times, without having
the means to respond.
It is to the benefit of the elected officials of the TS to come out of hiding
and respond in person and I hope they see that before it is too late.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 23:25:57 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:25:57 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626192557_225741105@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Opportunity

Alex,
Well, I won't argue with you on this one.  If she had pulled that stuff on me
I would feel the same way.  I'm probably slower to anger than you are, but I
would have turned her into something that likes to eat flies.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Jun 26 23:25:22 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:25:22 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960626192520_225741355@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: stuff about convention

For those of you who are planning on attending the annual family reunion in a
couple of weeks, there a few things you should be aware of that you will not
get from the AT.

1. DO NOT DRINK THE WATER AT OLCOTT.  This applies both to the stuff that
comes out of the tap and the water coolers.  They changed drinking water
services and the water now tastes very strange and we cannot be sure why.  Go
across the street to the big Jewel and by bottled water.

2.  Eat as few meals at Olcott as possible.  The food at convention ranges
from bad to inedible.  Two years ago Gerda ate several meals there in a row
and had such a bad case of constipation that we almost had to use some
leftover July 4th fireworks for suppositories.  There are several inexpensive
eateries near the headquarters where even you of the vegetable eating
persuasion can be safely fed.

3.  Do not stay up too late.  John likes to get to bed early and after 10:30
he will run everyone not billeted in the main building out and expect
everyone in the building to be heading for bed.  Try to avoid loud snoring
and NO LAUGHING!!!

4.  Avoid unauthorized mirth.  It makes the old folks nervous.  If you have a
small group meeting, expect to be joined by at least one board member who
will probably be wired for sound. (I'm not kidding.)

5.  Keep your keys with you at all times.  If you get locked out John will
become quite upset if he hears the doorbell, especially after curfew.

6.  Carry a small bible with you in case you are off the property and run
into the natives of Wheaton.  They tend to be fundamentalists and if you can
blend in with them you have a better chance of not being lynched.

7.  If you are travelling to Midway airport, do not, ever, use public
transportation no matter what Jeff says.  The natives in that part of the
city are not friendly and the rats are not vegetarians.  If you make the
wrong gang sign you might get killed.

Gerda and I will be at the entire convention so if you need any help, do not
hesitate to ask.

Chuck the Heretic
From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Jun 27 07:07:52 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:07:52 -0700
From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627070752.0067be60@beta.webcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Some Judge Letters

A few weeks ago a friend showed me a page of a program on
W.Q. Judge that was given earlier this year. He suggested,
in good fun, that the two letters on the page would make
interesting reading on theos-l. The letters follow.

-- Eldon

----

Paris, May 11, 1884

Dear Olcott,

I think it is time to start a section of the Society
which adopts all the doctrine of the Masters and shall
propagate it; all members of the Esoteric Section to
subscribe to the doctrine. You and HPB to stay out of it.

As ever,
W.Q. Judge

----

New York, April 27, 1886

Dear Olcott,

I have demanded, privately, from Coues his resignation
from the Board so as to give him a fair chance and shall
then ask the board to consider it, so it may reach India
unless they settle it.

He is either a Jesuit, or a self-seeking ass.

Coues writes and tells everybody that we must keep all
secret; and seems to think that the whole work is astral
body business, bells etc. etc. of that kind. His talk
to the women he had that night in Higley's house was
disgusting. Not a word of philosophy: all his power to
see in the astral light, of which I discredit every
word. But I said nothing then.

As ever your brother,
William Q. Judge

From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Jun 27 07:07:54 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:07:54 -0700
From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627070754.0067f3f4@beta.webcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Groups Can Be Useful

Chuck:

>The world is changing and none of us can see where it is going to end
>up, but at the moment all group activities are suffering, not just TS ones.

I'm not sure I agree. Certainly some or many T.S. lodges may be loosing
steam, but that is due to the interpersonal dynamics of the members of
the lodges. Organizations and groups can and do have powerful
influences on their members. Many do so with charismatic leaders or
with fabulous promises and thought control, like cults and ultra
conservative religions. The T.S. is at a disadvantage in this respect,
since it has little of either. With the T.S., individuals are left to
self-devised efforts, rather than told what to do, and often people
have too little genuine interest in the Path to proceed on their
own initiative.

>It is a situation we are just going to have to adapt to.

I'm not a Bailey fan, but I recall that she speaks strongly in favor
of group activities, putting it as the next great evolutionary step
forward. She depicts group work as higher than work done by individuals
alone.

Our society has fostered the breakdown of the nuclear family, the
family clan, and the sense of "village" and community, leaving us
alone in huge, impersonal cities. We're left alienated and alone.

There's a natural human tendency towards participation in groups,
with a sense of belonging, caring, and "family" to the groups. In
the most positive sense, a theosophical lodge would be more like
an Esoteric Section group, a close-knit family of people working
to help each other on the Path and to better the world about them.

This is the opposite extreme from a book-reading club where
individuals arrogantly pronounce their opinions as ultimate truth,
angrily denouncing and deploring the views of the great sages and
seers of all time.

>Now I rather enjoy group stuff myself.  There is nothing to compare with
>sitting down to a pizza and some beer with friends and discussing
>philosophies of various descriptions, including theosophy.

Fellowship with kindred souls is great. We share food, personal
experiences, and a mutual exploration of things that really
interest us. But there's a big difference between the Path, and
casual interests. In one case, we might picture some friends
deciding which movie to go to tonight. In the other case, we're
talking about changes in us that turn life inside-out and pull
the carpet out from under us, completely unsettling our smug
view of life and the world.

With the first case, someone might be talking a stroll through
the park, because it's a pleasant thing to do. With the other
case, someone may be putting in long hours at the track, daily,
in training for the Olympic trials. It is not arrogant to
recognize differences in interest, dedication, achievement, and
capacity, nor to point out those areas of self-development that
offer ourselves and the world fabulous rewards, if only we'd
make the effort!

>And the internet does create just groups, I am still sort of
>recovering from a gathering of magicians that meets once a
>year and we all met originally on the internet.

I suspect that we'll have many theosophical groups on the
internet, each with it's own personality and "belief".
Hopefully some places with be civil and respectful.

>So I agree that there will always be a role for groups.
>The question is how formal will they be?

Some groups or meetings, depending upon their purpose, need
formality and structure in order to get business done, like
board meetings for non-profit corporations. If an agenda is
not prepared in advance and time not properly budgeted,
important business might not get taken care of.

Other groups, like informally arising groups of friends
that are together out of mutual respect and mutual support,
may not need structure. The groups may evolve their own
way of doing things over time, without having to have
some external rules or guidelines. So I don't think we can
generalize.

-- Eldon

From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Jun 27 07:07:56 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:07:56 -0700
From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627070756.00681408@beta.webcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Theosophy for Beginners is True Too

Jerry S:

[writing to Richard Ihle]

>Americans are a lot smarter than 19th-century
>Hindu or Buddhists students, and demand a lot more than karma
>as reward-and-punishment. For myself, I loved it at first, then
>digested it, and then hungered for more, found it, and am now
>dissatisfied with the exoteric material in the TS literature.

You may be forgetting your own feeling of satisfaction and
opening vistas that the basic ideas gave you, when as a
beginner you first came to study them. Certainly you know
more now that you did then, and have passed on to deeper
understandings, but that's *you*, not everybody else.

For every person that may have studied the basic, most
simply view of the esoteric doctrines, there are perhaps
thousands that are starving for those simple, soul-healing
ideas.

For those with the good fortune to have studied the
teachings and benefited from them, they may have moved
yet deeper in their understanding of life. But that
"moving yet deeper" is in stages, and someone new to the
philosophy will get nowhere if they're offered the basic
teachings with one hand and hear them denounced, discredited,
and despised with the other. That would be giving a new
student a mixed message that would simply turn them away.

>I have no problem with defining Theosophy as a collection
>of core teachings and then list the headings.  Even giving
>out HPB's version is OK, providing it is acknowledged as
>exoteric (which it is)--I think that this is what Eldon has
>in mind when he talks about mining for gold, etc.

There's a problem when we say "Here's something to study,
but it's only *exoteric*, for beginners, watered-down
stuff, things I know to be untrue and to have personally
risen above, etc." That's certainly not respectful of the
Wisdom Tradition, and misses the point that the teachings
*are true*, but simply understood in simpler and more
basic models at first, and later understood with growing
sophistication and insight.

>But if we limit
>Theosophy to only HPB's versions then we are in trouble,
>because then the truth seeker will never get beyond the
>exoteric shell (and many may not anyway, but the fact that
>it is, after all, only an exoteric husk, should be given to
>all truth seekers however far they care to tread the Path).

There are a few flavors of the basic doctrines, and HPB's
is not the only one. But not all that passes as esoteric
wisdom is a genuine flavor of the Mysteries. There's more
fools gold than the real thing out in the world.

>The problem is that I often want to say things that she
>never discussed, and as Eldon, Jerry HE and others have
>suggested, her omissions are generally construed as
>negative opinions. In other words, if she doesn't mention it,
>it probably is not so. This is not the case *every* time, but
>too often for me.

The problem is not whether the idea is true or not, but
upon what basis do you present your ideas. We're all
entitled to present our views, whatever they are, if we
label them as such. If we want to suggest that a particular
idea we have is found in Theosophy, we can use direct
citations and a scholar approach to show the connection.
Or we can argue the idea from a philosophical standpoint
as being consistent, in accord with, and integral to what
is presented in Theosophy. Or yet again, we can simply
say "this is what I think".

I tend to take the second or third approach, partly because
I may be writing on my laptop at work, at the start of the
day, where reference books are not handy. Also, partly,
because I've seen how when someone does give quotes on
theos-l, the writer will find some people laugh in their
faces (and on occasion the bitterness of the reaction is
more akin to having someone spit in one's face). Hopefully
there'd be a few people, even on theos-l, who'd actually
want to study and talk about Theosophy, rather than simply
reject it out-of-hand and spend their time telling the
rest of us how clever they are in seeing how untrue it all
is!

-- Eldon


From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 00:32:34 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:32:34 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606270029.TAA29051@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Women Adepts


One of the questions that comes up in discussing Theosophy is that of
women adepts.

I just ran into a reference which seems to indicate that there "are"
women adepts even though none has been identified in public.

In the Key to Theosophy, H P Blavatsky makes this statement (pp. 203
TUP 1987 ISBN 0-911500-07-3)

"What I am about to read to you is from the pen of a National Saviour,
one who, having overcome Self, and being free to choose, has elected
to serve Humanity, in bearing at least as much as a women's shoulders
can possibly bear of National Karma. This is what she says:- ........
...

The gender reference above indicates a woman Adept.

________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 01:36:15 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:36:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960626203903.18ef03f6@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: stuff about convention

At 07:27 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>For those of you who are planning on attending the annual family reunion in a
>couple of weeks, there a few things you should be aware of that you will not
>get from the AT.
>
>1. DO NOT DRINK THE WATER AT OLCOTT.  This applies both to the stuff that
>comes out of the tap and the water coolers.  They changed drinking water
>services and the water now tastes very strange and we cannot be sure why.  Go
>across the street to the big Jewel and by bottled water.
>
>2.  Eat as few meals at Olcott as possible.  The food at convention ranges
>from bad to inedible.  Two years ago Gerda ate several meals there in a row
>and had such a bad case of constipation that we almost had to use some
>leftover July 4th fireworks for suppositories.  There are several inexpensive
>eateries near the headquarters where even you of the vegetable eating
>persuasion can be safely fed.
>
>3.  Do not stay up too late.  John likes to get to bed early and after 10:30
>he will run everyone not billeted in the main building out and expect
>everyone in the building to be heading for bed.  Try to avoid loud snoring
>and NO LAUGHING!!!
>

        This reminds me of our local lodge. Since the donors still had the
possession of the building, we could not stay late. What a strange contrast
to the three lodges I was associated with in the past and each one of them
owned the property outright and everyone felt as if thery are our own home
and could stay as late as we wanted.



>4.  Avoid unauthorized mirth.  It makes the old folks nervous.  If you have a
>small group meeting, expect to be joined by at least one board member who
>will probably be wired for sound. (I'm not kidding.)
>
>5.  Keep your keys with you at all times.  If you get locked out John will
>become quite upset if he hears the doorbell, especially after curfew.
>
>6.  Carry a small bible with you in case you are off the property and run
>into the natives of Wheaton.  They tend to be fundamentalists and if you can
>blend in with them you have a better chance of not being lynched.
>
>7.  If you are travelling to Midway airport, do not, ever, use public
>transportation no matter what Jeff says.  The natives in that part of the
>city are not friendly and the rats are not vegetarians.  If you make the
>wrong gang sign you might get killed.
>
>Gerda and I will be at the entire convention so if you need any help, do not
>hesitate to ask.
>
>Chuck the Heretic


        If this is the situation now, what will be the rules when the next
president takes over Olcott administration?
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 01:36:22 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:36:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960626203910.18ef3a32@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Theosophy for Beginners is True Too

Jerry S writing to Richard Ihle:
>
>>Americans are a lot smarter than 19th-century
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Hindu or Buddhists students, and demand a lot more than karma
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>as reward-and-punishment. For myself, I loved it at first, then
>>digested it, and then hungered for more, found it, and am now
>>dissatisfied with the exoteric material in the TS literature.
>
>

 Can you elaborate on this statement?


        ....Ramadoss
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 01:36:19 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:36:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960626203907.18ef0588@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Some Judge Letters

At 08:19 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>A few weeks ago a friend showed me a page of a program on
>W.Q. Judge that was given earlier this year. He suggested,
>in good fun, that the two letters on the page would make
>interesting reading on theos-l. The letters follow.
>
>-- Eldon
>
>----
>
>Paris, May 11, 1884
>
>Dear Olcott,
>
>I think it is time to start a section of the Society
>which adopts all the doctrine of the Masters and shall
>propagate it; all members of the Esoteric Section to
>subscribe to the doctrine. You and HPB to stay out of it.
>
>As ever,
>W.Q. Judge
>
>----
>
>New York, April 27, 1886
>
>Dear Olcott,
>
>I have demanded, privately, from Coues his resignation
>from the Board so as to give him a fair chance and shall
>then ask the board to consider it, so it may reach India
>unless they settle it.
>
>He is either a Jesuit, or a self-seeking ass.
>
>Coues writes and tells everybody that we must keep all
>secret; and seems to think that the whole work is astral
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        I thought that implicit (blind) obedience to the superiors was the
hall mark of Jesuits. I did not know keeping everything secret is another one.





>body business, bells etc. etc. of that kind. His talk
>to the women he had that night in Higley's house was
>disgusting. Not a word of philosophy: all his power to
>see in the astral light, of which I discredit every
>word. But I said nothing then.
>
>As ever your brother,
>William Q. Judge

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 01:27:34 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 02:27:34 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: The Cipher Letter
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL04.TXT - reproduced from two printed sheets.

[The next series of documents to be uploaded in this historical study
will be made up from carbon copies of original transcripts, together
with transcripts of original handwritten letters.  Apart from the first
item, these will be the letters of Helen I. Dennis, who, in 1906, was
the Corresponding Secretary of the Esoteric School of Theosophy,
American Division, writing from 218 East 60th Street, Chicago.  The
Assistant Secretary was listed at an address in Phildelphia, so one may
suppose that they worked from home. - A.B., ed.]

---------------------------------------------------------

THE LEADBEATER "CIPHER LETTER"

Authentic copy from the original, written by C. W. Leadbeater to
   one of his pupils about 1906, with explanatory letter from the
   boy's mother. The cipher letter was typewritten on paper
   identified by color and watermark as that used by him in other
   communications, and was received as an enclosure with another
   letter.

The "Cipher Letter"

PRIVATE

My own darling boy, there is no need for you to write
   anything in cipher, for no one but I ever sees your letters. But
   it is better for me to write in cipher about some of the
   most important matters; can you always read it easily?  Can you
   describe any of the forms in rose-colour which you have seen
   entering your room?  Are they human beings or nature spirits?
   The throwing of water is unusual in such a case, though I have
   had it done to me at a spiritualistic seance. Were you actually
   wet when you awoke, or was it only in sleep that you felt the
   water?  Either is possible, but they would represent different
   types of phenomena. All these preliminary experiences are
   interesting, and I wish we were nearer together to talk about
   them.

Turning to other matters, I am glad to hear of the rapid growth,
   and the strength of the results. Twice a week is permissible,
   but you will soon discover what brings the best effect. *The
   meaning of the sign [Circle with dot in center] is osauisu.
   Spontaneous manifestations are undesirable, and should be
   discouraged. Eg ou dinat xeuiiou iamq, ia oaaet socceoh nisa
   iguao. Cou oiu uii iguao, is ia xemm oiu dina xamm. Eiat uiuu
   iuqqao xiao zio usa utmaaq; tell me fully. Hmue taotuueio et ti
   qmautuou. Uiiotuoo lettat eusmeoh. (The following paragraph is
   the boy's translation of the paragraph written in cipher -
   beginning with the. first *)

The meaning of the sign  [Circle with dot in center]
   is urethra.  Spontaneous manifestations are undesirable and
   should be discouraged. If it comes without help, he needs
   rubbing more often, but not too often or he will not come well.
   Does that happen when you are asleep? Tell me fully. Glad
   sensation is so pleasant. Thousand kisses darling.

Key to the cipher.

Cipher       a b c d  e  f g h   i  j k l m
Translation  e a b c d,i e f g  h,o i j k l

Cipher       n  o  p q r s t  u  v w x y z
Translation  m n,u o p q r s a,t u v w x y

Letter from the Boy's Mother

May - 1906.

Dear ...........

Your request was duly received asking for a statement from our son
   as to whether he had approached Mr L. ... for aid, or whether
   Mr L. ... had approached him, but owing to my feeling that there
   was no necessary haste, and to some pressing home conditions, it
   has been delayed until now and I trust the delay has caused no
   complications.

At the present moment I believe it right to place in the hands of
   the Investigating Committee such evidence as we have pertaining
   to a sad difficulty.  Our only desire is that a full, fair
   setting forth of all points in the matter be made.

We have the deepest appreciation of Mr L'S kindness to the boy and
   ourselves in many ways, and whatever may come from us, we wish
   to avoid any semblance of pre-judging. What conclusions I have
   arrived at are based on the facts at hand.

My husband will send some statements later, setting forth his view
   of the situation as now presented to him.

Our son's statement clearly shows that Mr L. ... opened the
   subject.

After having fully discussed the matter with both his father and
   me, he has given the key to the cipher in which certain
   information was given to him by Mr L. ... in "private" notes
   placed in letters.  Our son was so disinclined to relate what Mr
   L. ... had taught him, that for a time we felt we were asking
   him to disregard his honor.  However, we arrived at the firm
   conviction that Mr L. ... had no moral right to give him
   instruction and then bind him by word or attitude to secresy.

No minor can join the T. S.  without the consent of parent or
   guardian.  How much less then has any one, teacher though he be,
   the right to give a teaching that he knows is not generally
   accepted, and then cause the boy to keep it away from his
   parents and further promote the secresy by private notes and the
   use of a cipher.

Mr L. . . . gave to this boy a teaching admittedly dangerous, and,
   at the same time, prevented the counsel and the guidance of his
   parents in so critical a matter by impressing the boy strongly
   with secresy.

Mr L. ... either considered the parents unfit counsellors or else
   he feared their disapproval. In either case it was an assumption
   of privilege. For no matter which view he held, the parents are
   Karmically responsible for the child, and such teaching so
   contrary to their sense of right would have been possibly
   permissible only after having consulted them and received their
   consent.

Neither the boy's father nor I would have permitted Mr L. ... to
   so instruct him. We have average intelligence; we have been
   devoted T. S. members since 1892 and surely would have been glad
   to co-operate with Mr L. ... in any measure we believed to be a
   useful factor in the boy's evolution.

Therefore, no matter what may be established as Mr L's motive, the
   fact that he ignored the rights and responsibilities of the
   parents deserves condemnation.

Our son left the slip of paper on the floor, from which the
   enclosed cipher note is copied. I also found another on the
   floor some time after finding the above mentioned cipher. That
   note was written in Mr L's hand and asked our son to keep a
   record of days when "experiments" were made, but this is now
   mislaid. It was not of so dangerous a nature as the enclosed;
   for in this, you will observe, Mr L. ... expresses himself as
   "glad the sensation is pleasant" showing that he approves of
   the sensuous part of the practice.

This surely was teaching the boy to throw pleasurable consciousness
   into the practice. Would not that make reactionary thought
   forms?

Mr L. ... knew from my letters to him, that I was earnestly
   striving to aid the boy in his moral and mental growth, and he
   directly, or indirectly taught the boy to keep this important
   phase of growth away from his parents. This was not fostering
   frankness, to say the least!

Mr L. ... says in his letter to Mr F., "The business of
   discovering and training especially hopeful younger members, and
   preparing them for Theosophical work has been put in my charge."

A man may have credentials which bespeak his ability to teach
   mathematics or to teach occultism but it is unfair to the
   intelligence and duty of the parents to be denied knowledge of
   the method.

Again and again we have been told to accept only what mind and
   conscience approve. Our duty is to give the child the best we
   know. Where can Mr L. ...  find justification in carefully
   teaching this practice which he knew was so generally condemned,
   and which he took no pains to put before parents for their
   acquiescence?

A. B. said to me in '97, "Never make the mistake of doing evil that
   good may come."

Now it appears to me that this act is far more evil in its effects
   than what we call lust, for it warps the nature and annuls any
   possible good that might result. No matter how great a person
   has given Mr L. ... this work to do, our duty and right is to
   pass judgment on the methods, and since, as parents and
   guardians of youth in the T. S. we disapprove of them, our way
   is clear, and that is, to denounce such teachings.

These statements are not made in the spirit of one who is unwilling
   to hear all sides, but are the results of pondering on evidence
   at hand which comes from Mr L. ... and as facts, are
   irrefutable.

It is an inexplicable feature in this case, that the boy was taught
   this method while away from his home.

There was ample opportunity for Mr L. ... to have consulted the
   boy's father about this when in our city, but, he did not.

I have only touched upon the parents' view, which is the fringe of
   a matter pregnant with other phases.

Trusting that the utmost frankness and courage may prevail at all
   points in this investigation, I am,

Sincerely Yours,

[Blank - ed.]
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 01:51:01 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 02:51:01 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL06.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL06.TXT

This is the first of a number of letters writen by Helen I. Dennis.
   This transcript is taken from a carbon copy in the recently
   discovered archive in England.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Chicago, March 8th, 1906.

Dear Mrs. Besant:-

The enclosed speaks for itself and gives proof, if any further
   proof were needed, of what Mr. Leadbeater is teaching the youths
   entrusted to his care.

Yours truly,

(Signed) Helen I. Dennis.

The following is an exact copy of a note sent to the third boy by
   Mr. Leadbeater. He is one of the boys who travelled with Mr.
   Leadbeater for months. It was accidentally discovered by the
   housekeeper of the house in which the family lived while in
   --------, among some rubbish which they had left behind them.
   The housekeeper is an F.T.S., and a practical Scotch woman who
   never throws anything into the fire without first looking at it
   and thus she found it. ----- has been the home of the family for
   sometime and it is the home to which the third boy went when his
   travels with Mr. Leadbeater were ended. They now live in
   --------------.

The mother had told this housekeeper that Mr. L. had given the
   third boy some exercise for the private, that would kill out all
   desire for women and marriage. The mother did not know just what
   it was, only that he did it in the morning while at his bath.
   It seems that the third boy told the family doctor what he was
   doing, and he must have written to Mr. L. about it and received.
   the following reply.

PRIVATE. "You made a mistake in mentioning that matter to the
   doctor; these things should be kept entirely to ourselves, and
   it may lead to much undesirable talk. I told you long ago that
   there were different opinions as to the best way to manage these
   things, and your doctor evidently holds a strongly opposite
   view. Still, there may be this much reason in what he says, that
   while you are not quite well we should spend no force that can
   be avoided. You will remember that when we met in ---------- I
   suggested longer intervals until you were completely recovered.
   Suppose you leave him entirely alone until the end of the year,
   and then report to me whether be has been troublesome in any
   way. Let us see how long he can conveniently go, for we
   certainly do not want any drain on the system, as you say.  But
   keep your thoughts entirely away from all subjects that might
   excite him, and if he is persistent, put him into cold water."

I certainly expected a cable from her after the receipt of this
   letter, announcing the reversal of her decision, such as came
   later in June, but instead I received following, merely
   repeating her decision of Feb. 26th.

Helen I Dennis

-----------

April 18,1906.

"I have your other note, and as I understand very well the object
   and nature of what was said to the boys, I can only repeat that
   I dissent from the method, but believe, am sure, the object was
   to save from profligacy or excess of any kind."

(Signed) Annie Besant.

---------
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 Thu Jun 27 04:38:06 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:38:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims
In-Reply-To: <14DxpEA2dY0xEw5T@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

To Alan, Bee & etc.:

> I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
> cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
> postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
> forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
> at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.

I beg to disagree - but not without foundation (-:). I'd much rather see
reality revealed - in fact we *are* a family at war ... but for quite
some time the war has been driven underground, supressed, avoided and
denied. Issues have festered instead of being resolved. Animosities have
been have been forced into the closet - those who have disagreed with an
enforced party line have been either silenced or (quite often) simply
forced out of the organized societies altogether.  And the chief means by
which this has been done is through the institutional leadership's
virtually complete control over the avenues of communication. It is not
surprising that having now, for the first time, obtained a means of
communication that *cannot* be controlled by any single person or
faction, a good deal of the initial effects have been to have very
intense explosions of what *appears* to be "unfamilylike" behaviour.

Look, for a moment, at the old Soviet Union. For decades it had the same
sort of "peace and harmony" the TS has: a strong, centralized,
authoritarian force governed virtually absolutely - there was a *surface
appearance* of peace, "elections" were held, the media reported only rosy
pictures of achievement, scholarship was permitted so long as it supported
the established order. One would have believed there *were* no ethnic
disputes. The moment, however, that dominant force was cracked, however,
suddenly violence - intense ethnic violence (some of which continues
even today) broke out all over. It turns out that decades of high-minded
rhetoric and spin doctoring had done *nothing* but mask conflicts ... the
parties now at war are, in fact, *closer* to peace than they were when
they were dominated by the Soviet order - because the *genuine*
differences are now out in the light of day; when harmony comes about it
will be something that arises out of the participants, not something
*imposed* on them. (And if three millenia of political history teaches us
any single fact, it is that harmony *cannot* be *imposed* on a population
- only the *appearance* of harmony can ... and it always winds up not
only being temporary, but resulting in greater disharmony in the long
run.) The situation in eastern Europe is currently extremely
discomforting, but in the long run many groups and factions who see the
world radically differently from one another now have the first genuine
chance in decades of actually discovering *among themselves* how to come
to terms with one another - how to live in something resembling peace.

So on this list. The institutional point of view - the Theosophy that has
been permitted by organizations - is certainly present here on the list
.. with very strong and vocal advocates. But for the first time perhaps
since the early days this point of view has not been able to *control the
avenues of communication*. There have *always* been sharp criticisms of
the perspective - but these criticisms have been completely banished from
TS circles - *have not been permitted*. People want to complain about Alexis
calling Joy Mills a "bitch"? Goodness gracious, that is *one line* in a
post maybe one hundred people will read. Look, though, at *what she did*
- and even further at the fact that the power she had in the organization
meant she could not only do it, but make sure *no one else heard about
it*. Her *actions* were a scale of magnitude worse than *any* words.

Those who want to complain about the "negativity" on the list - *please*
consider for a moment what its *source* might be. I agree that it is
extremely uncomfortable at times. That it perhaps *appears* to be
anything but the demonstration of our ideal - but I would submit that
	1. It may well be a *necessary* release of pressure, a venting of
pressure that has built up for quite some time - even decades - and that
it has been *made* necessary, and perhaps rendered superficially far more
vicious because *all avenues of calm, reasoned criticism have been
controlled and often completely sealed off*. Debates about the most
fundamental nature of what Theosophy is and how it ought to be presented
to the world are going on here - IMO they *should* be going on in the
organized societies themselves, but to this day they are *not permitted*.
	2. Please understand that those who may sometimes appear most
passionate in their condemnation are *not* simply unevolved cretins who
cannot control their emotions, and are incapable of reasoned discourse.
The motivation, the outright *anger* comes, at least in some, from a
*deep love for Theosophy, a powerful desire to see it become a credible,
effective force in the world, and a terribly uncomfortable feeling that
unless something changes drastically it will soon be little other than a
little dead shell*. A hundred people, having been treated as Alexis was
treated by Joy, or having withstood what K. Paul Johnson had directed at
him from Wheaton, would have simply *left*. In fact, the *reason*, I
think, the current cliques can keep getting elected is that they have
pretty much chased away anyone too opposed to their perspective. I am
*not* saying that those who *do* have power are any less passionate. I
believe Joy, and for that matter JA and RB do love and care about
Theosophy, and they believe that what they are doing is for its betterment
- but I do *not* think that gives them standing to control or supress
others who see things very differently, but are just as concerned about
Theosophy and its future. Bee, you may not like the intense criticisms
here, may label it "paranoia" - but please consider that if it seems
sometimes too intense, it is because this place is the *only* place in
the entire theosophical world where it is allowed - and is only allowed
because there is no way anyone can forbid it. In the United States, I
believe it was one of our Presidents (John F. Kennedy) that once said
"where peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is
inevitable". There is (IMO) a profound truth behind that statement. Those
who *are* comfortable in current mainstream organizations, *please*
consider for a moment that possibly good numbers of people, really
*committed* people, people who would have expended great amounts of time
and energy *within* the organizations and on behalf of them *have* been
made to feel that their ideas were unwelcome (or even called just
outright wrong), their energy unwanted, their contributions meaningless.
Please consider, if even for a moment, what it means to trashed, ignored,
diminished and outright delibrately abused by organizations purportadly
acting on behalf of a philosophy your deepest heart is drawn to ....
	3. The surface and the depth. To take even the first steps
towards the realization of the first Object means that surface
presentation, communication *styles* will have to be simply seen through.
There (IMO) *is* no way a *global* community, with people from a whole
variety of different cultures, backgrounds, and personality types, will
*ever* agree on some single "correct" standard for discourse. This is
(again, IMO) the first great stride towards the First Object ... the
understanding that everyone assumes their notion of what is "correct" or
"polite" or "reasonable" is *universal*. As a for instance, I have some
Italian and Turkish friends (and this is not to generalize about those
cultures) to whom Alexis would seem *very* tame. But I also have Chinese
friends (whose conversation ceaselessly amazes me - so multilayered and
nuanced) to whom the discourse of Eldon and Bee would often appear
outright violent. Some people are overt. Others can say "F*** You" in
words that sound like they are taken from the Psalms of David. *Intent*
matters. Bee, with all due respect, I read your post to John Mead. Please
do read it ... what *really* was your intent, your motivation? It was
clearly not to John ... but was directed at others on the list. The whole
thing seemed to be intended to say "up yours" to very specific people. Am
I wrong? Clearly you were angry - but can you perhaps understand that the
*cause* of that anger is the same thing that caused Alexis to call Joy a
"bitch", the same thing that causes me to periodically use language like
a razor rather than a flower, that causes Doss to keep up a calm but
unrelenting effort to make Wheaton HQ accountable - etc., etc?

Anything, from a single person to a whole organization (or indeed even
nation) that *supresses*, that avoids, necessarily over time forms a
larger and larger shadow ... and must increasingly find carriers for that
shadow. Theosophy has, IMO, developed a *huge* shadow, but (again, IMO)
the healthiest thing in the world will be for it to actually have to
begin *facing it*. And that is *never* either a pretty or comfortable
process. But again, (IMO) *studying* Theosophy is easy - doing the *work*
is terribly difficult, takes tremendous courage - and is (IMO) *for the
first time* being done on this list. Theosophy is, here, beginning the
painful process of *claiming its shadow* - a process that takes, simply,
full engagement on the part of both the dominant and repressed voices of
the entity.

My own personal preference - my notion of what's best for Theosophy? ...
Alexis, keep swearing, spittin' and cursin' like a longshoresman, but
*unfilter* your mail - open totally to the process; Bee, Liesel, Rich,
etc., etc., *please stay on the list*; Eldon, *keep* articulating the
party line; Doss, keep politely hammering; Chuck, please continue to
scare the shit out of people; Alan, keep up the ceaseless promotion of
TI; well, I could go on and on, but the bigger point is this - I believe
that if we all stay *engaged*, have the courage and willingness to each
articulate *powerfully* our positions, and *give up* any attempts to
control either the style or thoughts of others, have the heart to not
give an inch on our positions (unless we are voluntarily compelled to by
the correctness and force of the argument of another) but also the heart
to completely hear and withstand all responses to those positions, we
might (or might not ... who knows? (-:) see a *genuine* nucleus of a
"Universal Family of Humanity" emerge of its own accord out of the
discourse - and it may not look like anything *any* of us currently
conceive it to be.

finally, the single thing I think I've discovered after my time here is
that when I *look for* the intent behind the words - the often covertly
or overtly violent words - spoken by almost everyone on the list, I
believe I hear the same thing ... all the speakers here have a *profound*
love and commitment to Theosophy ... and a desire to see it survive and
thrive ... in fact, *without* an underlying common foundation the fights
could not get as passionate and nasty as they do.

I guess, in my opinion, *there is absolutely nothing wrong with this
list, nor anyone on it*. I would not want *anyone* to leave, do not want
to close my ears to any voices, nor want anyone to alter or supress one
iota the expression of precisely what they think or feel at any moment,
nor wish anyone to change their style or mode of expression. I want to
*see what the truth of modern Theosophy is* - in all its glory and
horror. And even further, I am becoming not just curious, but downright
excited about what it might become, about what it might evolve into,
about what might emerge, about what *strange and beautiful fruit tree
might grow out of the seed HPB planted if it is finally allowed to grow
of its own accord, in its own directions, and according to its own
predilections.*
				I love you all very much.      -JRC
From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 05:43:23 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:43:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, JRC wrote:

> To Alan, Bee & etc.:
>
> > I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
> > cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
> > postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
> > forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
> > at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.
>
> I beg to disagree - but not without foundation (-:). I'd much rather see
> reality revealed - in fact we *are* a family at war ... but for quite
> some time the war has been driven underground, supressed, avoided and
> denied. Issues have festered instead of being resolved. Animosities have
> been have been forced into the closet - those who have disagreed with an
> enforced party line have been either silenced or (quite often) simply
> forced out of the organized societies altogether.  And the chief means by
> which this has been done is through the institutional leadership's
> virtually complete control over the avenues of communication. It is not
> surprising that having now, for the first time, obtained a means of
> communication that *cannot* be controlled by any single person or
> faction, a good deal of the initial effects have been to have very
> intense explosions of what *appears* to be "unfamilylike" behaviour.
> >>>>> mega clip >>>>>>

1. JRC has presented a summary of overall situation as well as anybody can.

2. Internet may the *last* chance we have to openly discuss so that
out of all the discussions will comeout a *revival* of the original
spirit and *energy* with which TS was started in 1875.

3. Everyone here is spending quite a bit of their time to read and post
messages and they would not be doing it unless they care for Theosophy
and TS and as JRC pointed out do deeply care and understand what a
revived TS can do for the masses.

4. Unsubscribing or going into lurking mode or filtering everybody is a
very easy thing to do. But these are not going to help, but only ease the
further shrinkage of the TS.

5. The leadership which is too close to the problems may not be aware of
how serious is the situation. We, IMHO, have the problem of emperor has
no clothes situation.

6. As I had already stated in a post, has any one seen *any* of the elected
officers anywhere in the cyberspace? It makes one wonder why?

7. Let us recognize that each one of us here is very very important and
we cannot offord to lose even a single subscriber.

8. If you look at many of the major developments in history, they took
place because of a small group of very dedicated and passionate
individuals. So our small group here at theos-xxxx can act as a catalyst
for better days for Theosophy and TS and let us be optimistic and not
lose heart or enthusiasm or commitment.



_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss, Novice and  EO
    (Eternal Optimist) - don't confuse with Eminent Occultist



From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 06:37:04 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:37:04 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627063704.006c3130@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

At 07:29 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>Being involved with scouting is not something to be accounted to anyones'
>good reputation.
>
>Chuck
>
>Hell no! Lord Baden-Powell was just like Leadbeater and Wedgewood, no boy
was left unturned!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 06:57:27 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:57:27 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627065727.006c46f8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

At 08:59 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
>cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
>postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
>forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
>at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan:

May I assume that you wrote this before reading my message entitled "Joy
Mills and I"? Believe me my friend that is the mildest thing I could say
about her, and she doesn't deserve from me (i.e. courtesy) what she never
had the decency to give TO me! If you've read JRC's message concerning his
experience with Joy you'll see that she is always what I called her. Believe
me Alan, you don't know th woman, she makes the present President of the
Bristol Lodge look like a "Saint". I apologized to Liesel because I
shouldn't have said what I did. I will NOT retract one iota of what I've
said about Joy Mills. Tell me, Alan, how does her little notion of "Tourists
and Pilgrims" fit into a concept of universal amity. I have never heard
anything so contemptuous and dismissing of others. The woman and her coterie
are the most ghastly elitists I have ever encountered and they have the
least basis to be so.

Sorry Alan, as much as I love and respect you, this time I'm right. As you
know I'm not a Christian so I don't have to forgive, and I won't ever
forgive her for the things she did to us, said about us, and caused to be
said about us!

alexei

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 07:22:10 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:22:10 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627072210.006e81d0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

John:

I've been "unfiltered" for over a week now.

As usual I agree with what you have to say. (Especially about Russia which
is an area in which I am especially interested)

I think it can be simply put: "Coercive amity is no amity at all!" What the
world needs is amity that comes out of itself, naturally. You cannot make
people like one another. and sometimes, people have very good reason to be
angry. If these people think I am angry and "swear like a longshoreman" what
would they have done with Yelena? She makes me seem like a "cream puff"!

Theosophy is NOT a Baptist Sunday School Picnic, nor was it ever intended to
be one. It's in the process of pretending to be a sunday School Picnic that
Theosophy has become something not worth bothering with.

I was reading something by Blavatsky today in which she said "The society
doesn't need a Loyola" and went on to warn that if casuistry raised it's
head the movement was doomed. Have you read the American Theosophist? If
that's not casuistry (especially John Algeo's contributions) I don't know
what is.

I am becoming very disillusioned with the T.S. and my anger and rage is in
direct proportion to my disappointment. And I'm the one who's always warning
others not to have false expectations.

Another thing you're right about is that I've kept a lid on these feelings
since 1973, the internet set me free and I am reveling in it. The "Children,
let's all be nice and not fight" routine just doesn't hold water any more.
Like a lot of other people I've just realized that "they' can't control me
at all! The Internet is probably the greatest contribution to human liberty
in the course of history!

I love you too (don't get nervous, I mean it the way you do).

alexis dolgorukii

From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Jun 27 06:13:51 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:13:51 +1300
From: Bee Brown 
Message-Id: <31D2269F.4FDE@whanganui.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

JRC wrote:
>
> To Alan, Bee & etc.:
>
> > I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
> > cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
> > postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
> > forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
> > at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.
>
> I beg to disagree - but not without foundation (-:). I'd much rather see
> reality revealed

For the moment I still seem to be here but I am serious and will
unsubscribe via the listserv as John may not have caught up with his mail.
Do you think that being rude & jumping on others like a ton of bricks is
revealing reality?
- in fact we *are* a family at war ... but for quite
> some time the war has been driven underground, supressed, avoided and
> denied. Issues have festered instead of being resolved. Animosities have
> been have been forced into the closet - those who have disagreed with an
> enforced party line have been either silenced or (quite often) simply
> forced out of the organized societies altogether.  And the chief means by
> which this has been done is through the institutional leadership's
> virtually complete control over the avenues of communication. It is not
> surprising that having now, for the first time, obtained a means of
> communication that *cannot* be controlled by any single person or
> faction, a good deal of the initial effects have been to have very
> intense explosions of what *appears* to be "unfamilylike" behaviour.

War has never solved anything just take a detached look at history. If I
spoke to my lodge members in the tone you take here they would have deposed
me long ago and then what good would I have been able to do then? I don't
have the god-given right to speak to others as if they are gormless idiots.
Leadership problems will always rise untill we all grow to be less
self-interested because then power will have no meaning.
>
> Look, for a moment, at the old Soviet Union. For decades it had the same
> sort of "peace and harmony" the TS has: a strong, centralized,
> authoritarian force governed virtually absolutely - there was a *surface
> appearance* of peace, "elections" were held, the media reported only rosy
> pictures of achievement, scholarship was permitted so long as it supported
> the established order. One would have believed there *were* no ethnic
> disputes. The moment, however, that dominant force was cracked, however,
> suddenly violence - intense ethnic violence (some of which continues
> even today) broke out all over. It turns out that decades of high-minded
> rhetoric and spin doctoring had done *nothing* but mask conflicts ... the
> parties now at war are, in fact, *closer* to peace than they were when
> they were dominated by the Soviet order - because the *genuine*
> differences are now out in the light of day; when harmony comes about it
> will be something that arises out of the participants, not something
> *imposed* on them. (And if three millenia of political history teaches us
> any single fact, it is that harmony *cannot* be *imposed* on a population
> - only the *appearance* of harmony can ... and it always winds up not
> only being temporary, but resulting in greater disharmony in the long
> run.) The situation in eastern Europe is currently extremely
> discomforting, but in the long run many groups and factions who see the
> world radically differently from one another now have the first genuine
> chance in decades of actually discovering *among themselves* how to come
> to terms with one another - how to live in something resembling peace.

Likening Theosophy to USSR is also spin-doctoring. It is taking an extreme
situation and using it as a sort of batter-ram and insinuating that there is
a parallel to be drawn. I cannot accept such a comparison so whatever point
you were trying to make, it has not succeeded in my case.
>
> So on this list. The institutional point of view - the Theosophy that has
> been permitted by organizations - is certainly present here on the list
> .. with very strong and vocal advocates. But for the first time perhaps
> since the early days this point of view has not been able to *control the
> avenues of communication*. There have *always* been sharp criticisms of
> the perspective - but these criticisms have been completely banished from
> TS circles - *have not been permitted*.

I didn't think this was a TS circle and it always seemed to me that people
should be able to express their opinions, what ever they may be, without
having rude and uncivil comments directed at them. If someone disagrees with
me then fine, it causes me to question my opinion but it may not necessarily
change it. If I get shouted at rudely then I won't even think on it, I will
just get either ignore the whole thing or settle further into my opinion and
it will all have been a waste of time. I am too old now to be frightened into
submission.
 People want to complain about Alexis
> calling Joy Mills a "bitch"? Goodness gracious, that is *one line* in a
> post maybe one hundred people will read. Look, though, at *what she did*
> - and even further at the fact that the power she had in the organization
> meant she could not only do it, but make sure *no one else heard about
> it*. Her *actions* were a scale of magnitude worse than *any* words.

I have no idea what she did and I didn't expect to have to indulge in
recriminations and politics on a theosophy discussion list. OK that is my
problem and so I sort it out by leaving. I get enough gossiping and bitching
outside of theosophy to last me several lifetimes and I do not like making
judgements on others who I really know very little about. I have encountered
Joy at conferences and found her pleasant to me so what she may have done to
others I do not know. I believe in the theosophical idea that returning evil
with evil only perpetuates evil, returning evil with good difuses it. Liesel
talks of ahimsa and I reckon Gandhi got more done that way than going to war
with Britain, to use your sort of analogy.
>
> Those who want to complain about the "negativity" on the list - *please*
> consider for a moment what its *source* might be. I agree that it is
> extremely uncomfortable at times. That it perhaps *appears* to be
> anything but the demonstration of our ideal - but I would submit that
>         1. It may well be a *necessary* release of pressure, a venting of
> pressure that has built up for quite some time - even decades - and that
> it has been *made* necessary, and perhaps rendered superficially far more
> vicious because *all avenues of calm, reasoned criticism have been
> controlled and often completely sealed off*. Debates about the most
> fundamental nature of what Theosophy is and how it ought to be presented
> to the world are going on here - IMO they *should* be going on in the
> organized societies themselves, but to this day they are *not permitted*.

Sorry but I can find no excuse for viciousness in theosophy.

>         2. Please understand that those who may sometimes appear most
> passionate in their condemnation are *not* simply unevolved cretins who
> cannot control their emotions, and are incapable of reasoned discourse.

I haven't heard anyone say that but I understand that most of the teachings
recommend control of emotions if one wants to see straight and achieve
respect from others.
> The motivation, the outright *anger* comes, at least in some, from a
> *deep love for Theosophy, a powerful desire to see it become a credible,
> effective force in the world, and a terribly uncomfortable feeling that
> unless something changes drastically it will soon be little other than a
> little dead shell*.

I have a deep devotion to theosophy and have tried to gain an understanding
of what it teaches. Shouting at others and trying to force them to see it my
way isn't what it is about. I have no doubt about your love of theosophy, it
is not my place to even question it regardless of how you wish to express it.

A hundred people, having been treated as Alexis was
> treated by Joy, or having withstood what K. Paul Johnson had directed at
> him from Wheaton, would have simply *left*. In fact, the *reason*, I
> think, the current cliques can keep getting elected is that they have
> pretty much chased away anyone too opposed to their perspective. I am
> *not* saying that those who *do* have power are any less passionate. I
> believe Joy, and for that matter JA and RB do love and care about
> Theosophy, and they believe that what they are doing is for its betterment
> - but I do *not* think that gives them standing to control or supress
> others who see things very differently, but are just as concerned about
> Theosophy and its future. Bee, you may not like the intense criticisms
> here, may label it "paranoia" - but please consider that if it seems
> sometimes too intense, it is because this place is the *only* place in
> the entire theosophical world where it is allowed - and is only allowed
> because there is no way anyone can forbid it. In the United States, I
> believe it was one of our Presidents (John F. Kennedy) that once said
> "where peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is
> inevitable". There is (IMO) a profound truth behind that statement. Those
> who *are* comfortable in current mainstream organizations, *please*
> consider for a moment that possibly good numbers of people, really
> *committed* people, people who would have expended great amounts of time
> and energy *within* the organizations and on behalf of them *have* been
> made to feel that their ideas were unwelcome (or even called just
> outright wrong), their energy unwanted, their contributions meaningless.
> Please consider, if even for a moment, what it means to trashed, ignored,
> diminished and outright delibrately abused by organizations purportadly
> acting on behalf of a philosophy your deepest heart is drawn to ....

You are saying that 'they' are all to blame for the various problems people
are having with 'them'? Committed theosophists are such no matter where they
are and there are many people who do not have a Lodge or such like in their
vicinity and they 'do theosophy' just the same. Laying blame on
organizations for failing to take heed of our needs is a bit like whistling
in the wind. Anyone who has the patience and a quiet balanced outlook, can
change an organization from within, without it realising it has been changed.
A little lobbying here and a whisper there. Many small compromises leads to
the goal easier than a sledgehammer and the change becomes permanent.
>         3. The surface and the depth. To take even the first steps
> towards the realization of the first Object means that surface
> presentation, communication *styles* will have to be simply seen through.
> There (IMO) *is* no way a *global* community, with people from a whole
> variety of different cultures, backgrounds, and personality types, will
> *ever* agree on some single "correct" standard for discourse. This is
> (again, IMO) the first great stride towards the First Object ... the
> understanding that everyone assumes their notion of what is "correct" or
> "polite" or "reasonable" is *universal*. As a for instance, I have some
> Italian and Turkish friends (and this is not to generalize about those
> cultures) to whom Alexis would seem *very* tame. But I also have Chinese
> friends (whose conversation ceaselessly amazes me - so multilayered and
> nuanced) to whom the discourse of Eldon and Bee would often appear
> outright violent. Some people are overt. Others can say "F*** You" in
> words that sound like they are taken from the Psalms of David. *Intent*
> matters. Bee, with all due respect, I read your post to John Mead. Please
> do read it ... what *really* was your intent, your motivation?Yes it was and it was done that way in reponse to Alexis' remark that people
threaten to do so and then don't. As mentioned earlier, I will have to do it
properly via the listserver.
 It was
> clearly not to John ... but was directed at others on the list. The whole
> thing seemed to be intended to say "up yours" to very specific people. Am
> I wrong?

No you are not wrong and it was to John. Yes I was intending to indicate that
I had enough of it all.

 Clearly you were angry - but can you perhaps understand that the
> *cause* of that anger is the same thing that caused Alexis to call Joy a
> "bitch", the same thing that causes me to periodically use language like
> a razor rather than a flower, that causes Doss to keep up a calm but
> unrelenting effort to make Wheaton HQ accountable - etc., etc?

As I don't subscribe to bad language I have the choice whether I let it
darken my doorstep or not. :-) It was not just Alexis calling Joy names this
time, it is an accumulation of that sort of thing that has caused my
decision. It is not that I am angry in the way you get angry, it is painful
to me to read posts that smack of oblivious thoughtlessness to others
feelings. OK you persons have had your feelings hurt and trampled on and so
you pass it on. This happens to others but they deal with it in their own way
so that it doesn't hurt others.
You are fond of the word suppression. After nearly a year on theos-l I feel
so suppressed by the stinging critisms flying around that it takes me all my
courage to say anything. Just now I don't care any more and will be leaving
anyway so certain persons can get as nasty as they like.
>
> Anything, from a single person to a whole organization (or indeed even
> nation) that *supresses*, that avoids, necessarily over time forms a
> larger and larger shadow ... and must increasingly find carriers for that
> shadow. Theosophy has, IMO, developed a *huge* shadow, but (again, IMO)
> the healthiest thing in the world will be for it to actually have to
> begin *facing it*. And that is *never* either a pretty or comfortable
> process. But again, (IMO) *studying* Theosophy is easy - doing the *work*
> is terribly difficult, takes tremendous courage - and is (IMO) *for the
> first time* being done on this list. Theosophy is, here, beginning the
> painful process of *claiming its shadow* - a process that takes, simply,
> full engagement on the part of both the dominant and repressed voices of
> the entity.

Here again I disagree as I don't think 'facing it' with such emotional
overtones will do more than keep the fires burning for longer than necessary.
I know people who cannot live without a large emotional content to their
lives. If nothing is happening, they go out and create a scene to get their
emotional fix and cannot understand how life can be so cruel to them. That's
fine for them but I do not wish to be the catalyst that gives them the fix so
I don't play the game.
>
> My own personal preference - my notion of what's best for Theosophy? ...
> Alexis, keep swearing, spittin' and cursin' like a longshoresman, but
> *unfilter* your mail - open totally to the process; Bee, Liesel, Rich,
> etc., etc., *please stay on the list*;No thank you. If I am required to spit and curse to keep up with these
theosophical discourse, I pass. Not the way I do business.

 Eldon, *keep* articulating the
> party line; Doss, keep politely hammering; Chuck, please continue to
> scare the shit out of people; Alan, keep up the ceaseless promotion of
> TI; well, I could go on and on, but the bigger point is this - I believe
> that if we all stay *engaged*, have the courage and willingness to each
> articulate *powerfully* our positions,

 and *give up* any attempts to
> control either the style or thoughts of others,

That is the bit I have been complaining about and if that ever becomes the
norm on here then I shall be happy for you all.

 have the heart to not
> give an inch on our positions (unless we are voluntarily compelled to by
> the correctness and force of the argument of another)

Fine words but how many times have I seen outright attacks by certain persons
on theos-l that were uncalled for, just because someone disagreed with what
was said
 but also the heart
> to completely hear and withstand all responses to those positions, we
> might (or might not ... who knows? (-:) see a *genuine* nucleus of a
> "Universal Family of Humanity" emerge of its own accord out of the
> discourse - and it may not look like anything *any* of us currently
> conceive it to be.
>
> finally, the single thing I think I've discovered after my time here is
> that when I *look for* the intent behind the words - the often covertly
> or overtly violent words - spoken by almost everyone on the list, I
> believe I hear the same thing ... all the speakers here have a *profound*
> love and commitment to Theosophy ... and a desire to see it survive and
> thrive ... in fact, *without* an underlying common foundation the fights
> could not get as passionate and nasty as they do.

I shall go and love my theosophy in a less violent climate, thank you.
Bee Brown
>
> I guess, in my opinion, *there is absolutely nothing wrong with this
> list, nor anyone on it*. I would not want *anyone* to leave, do not want
> to close my ears to any voices, nor want anyone to alter or supress one
> iota the expression of precisely what they think or feel at any moment,
> nor wish anyone to change their style or mode of expression. I want to
> *see what the truth of modern Theosophy is* - in all its glory and
> horror. And even further, I am becoming not just curious, but downright
> excited about what it might become, about what it might evolve into,
> about what might emerge, about what *strange and beautiful fruit tree
> might grow out of the seed HPB planted if it is finally allowed to grow
> of its own accord, in its own directions, and according to its own
> predilections.*
>                                 I love you all very much.      -JRC

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 02:08:49 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 03:08:49 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Welcome
In-Reply-To: <960626192550_225741137@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960626192550_225741137@emout14.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Alan,
>Excellent, but for the god's sake don't let her build a labyrinth.  One bout
>with the Minotaur was enough.
>
>Theseus

Listen, Chuck, if she or I or you or any TI member wants to build a
labrynth, then we will b.... well build one.

So there.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 15:07:26 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:07:26 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <8eVVFNAuOq0xEw6K@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960627065727.006c46f8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960627065727.006c46f8@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>At 08:59 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
>>cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
>>postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
>>forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
>>at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.
>>
>
>>Alan:
>
>May I assume that you wrote this before reading my message entitled "Joy
>Mills and I"?

You assume correctly.  I just wrote a brief reply to JRC's post wishing
you had made your comments in the reverse order - but you will see it
when you download your mail.

Alan (ex-Christian)

(In case you forgot) :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 15:02:30 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:02:30 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <5ePUlLAGKq0xEw6o@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
JRC  writes
>People want to complain about Alexis
>calling Joy Mills a "bitch"? Goodness gracious, that is *one line* in a
>post maybe one hundred people will read. Look, though, at *what she did*

Yours is a very long post, John, so I will read it properly later.
Regarding the above, I certainly take your point, but would also want to
note that she was called a "bitch" first and the explanation given
afterwards.  With hindsight, Alexis' outburst was understandable, but it
would have been an enormous help *to all of us* had he given us the
facts *first.*  I for one had no idea of the history or background of
Joy Mills, who is just a name that appears in theosophical writings (and
adverts) from time to time.

I had intended to write to Alexis personally making the same point, but
I am sure he will read this and understand that I have been busy with
other things on theos-roots .....

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 17:44:47 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:44:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Posting of CWL Material
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Alan:

You have done a very valuable service in posting the CWL material. I do
not know how many realized that what you have posted is very rare
material indeed.

As I have indicated several times in many posts, I am among the many
thousands who were benefitted by CWL's writings and still love to read
them, as well as my gratitude for CWL's discovery of JK, because of the
immense benefit me and many thousands have derived from JK's videos and
other printed material. Any material that comes out is not going to
change either my attitude or gratitude to CWL and JK, because for me
proof of the pudding is in eating and I have been benefitted personally.

No matter what kind of pro or against view each one of us have on CWL,
the fact is that the material you posted is almost impossible to access
for an ordinary member without going to a lot of trouble and expense. Now
due to Internet, with the comfort of our homes, you have made the
information accessible at no cost to us.

Again thank you for the posts.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 20:42:47 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:42:47 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627204247.006c377c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

At 12:31 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960627065727.006c46f8@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>At 08:59 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>I agree, there is no need for this sort of rudeness.  Please may it
>>>cease on all of the lists.  We can be rude to each other in private
>>>postings easily enough.  If this sort of stuff keeps going back and
>>>forth, our own part of the universal human family could become a family
>>>at war, we will be defeating our own purposes, and denying our ideals.
>>>
>>
>>>Alan:
>>
>>May I assume that you wrote this before reading my message entitled "Joy
>>Mills and I"?
>
>You assume correctly.  I just wrote a brief reply to JRC's post wishing
>you had made your comments in the reverse order - but you will see it
>when you download your mail.
>
>Alan (ex-Christian)
>
>(In case you forgot) :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan: I didn't forget.....sure it would have been better had I posted my
reasons first, and then called her that...but that's not how life usually
works...first we react,,,then we explain...especially
Russo-Hungarians.....we're not famous for self-discipline!

alexei

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 20:39:11 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:39:11 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627203911.006c6774@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Welcome

At 11:02 AM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <960626192550_225741137@emout14.mail.aol.com>,
>Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>>Alan,
>>Excellent, but for the god's sake don't let her build a labyrinth.  One bout
>>with the Minotaur was enough.
>>
>>Theseus
>
>Listen, Chuck, if she or I or you or any TI member wants to build a
>labrynth, then we will b.... well build one.
>
>So there.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan & Chuck:

Mes amis, what on earth are you talking about? Er...it is "on earth" isn't it?

alexei

From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:30 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:30 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191230_341736379@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

JRC
As long as I don't scare the shit out of myself in the process.  But I think
we have no need to fear the controllers among us.  John Mead has said he is
totally against moderation of the list (read censorship) and I can guarantee
that no one is ever going to interfere with alt.theosophy.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:13 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:13 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191212_341736423@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

Doss,
In other words, let's keep giving them hell.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:22 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:22 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191221_341736593@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

Alex,
There is nothing quite as much fun as scaring the hell out of people at a
Sunday School picnic.  Someday I shall have to tell you what a girlfriend and
I did to one.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:41 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:41 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191240_341736665@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

Bee,
Wars do solve problems.  The problems are ususally transitory but tend to be
very important at the time.  I mean, 2000 years from now who would care if
the population of New Zealand spoke English or Japanese, but fifty years ago
it was a matter of some small importance.  The same is true in theosophy.
 The stuff that we get all furious about now may be as meaningless in 70
years as some of the stuff you can read about in the old journals.  But right
now they matter.  Theosophy is at one these weird, historic junctures that
spiritual systems run into early in their development and the decisions that
are made in the next few years may well determine if it survives and how.
JRC makes light of the fact that I scare people.  Well, there are people out
there who scare me and a few of them are in the TS.
So what do I do about it?  Do I walk, like most others, or do I stay and
fight for what I believe in?  I've already done an end-run (pardon the sports
analogy) around the powers that be by starting alt.theosophy and it is my
hope that by means of it the ideas can be spread farther than they are now.
 But it is a big world out there and every country has a different culture,
even if they share common things like language.
American discourse can get pretty fierce.  We don't like pretense and despise
respectability.  I can see where that would make you and a lot of others
uncomfortable and I wish there were a way to soften it, but it has become a
point of honor now, and so things are going to stay pretty much as they are.

Chuck
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 00:09:01 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:09:01 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960627204247.006c377c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960627204247.006c377c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>Russo-Hungarians.....we're not famous for self-discipline!
>
>alexei

May you be the first to become famous for it ...

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Fri Jun 28 02:42:28 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:42:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: TI Web Page
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Alan wrote:
>
> Theosophy International has been offered 5MB of Web space.  Members are
> invited to offer suggestions as to the best use to be made of this, not
> forgetting a layout which will appeal to surfers.

Alan this is *wonderful* - who's the kind soul? Would you care to start
the discussion ... just take a shot and offer suggestions for the Home
Page (style, content, graphics & etc.) and the first few links? Anyone else?
								-JRC
From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Jun 28 02:09:57 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:09:57 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606280315.XAA13431@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Dynamic groups ....

I just remembered 1 device we used in NJ that was kind of fun, & got
everyone to participate. We'd choose a certain subject matter, & then the
book agent (no she never did anything, I did it) got in touch with the
Olcott Library, who sent us a number of books on the chosen subject. i'd
tell them how many participants we were & they'd sent a few more books.
Everyone would choose 1 facet of the topic to report on on a day about a
month after the books arrived.
Liesel
...........................................................................


>In message <199606260113.VAA22035@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f.
>deutsch"  writes
>>I don't think
>>that one person doing everything is conducive to having a dynamic group.
>>When you prepapre a talk, you learn, when you participate in a group your
>>interest awakens more. My pap feeding the rest of them isn't my idea of what
>>should be. It doesn't work in the long run
>
>I think you are right.  It may be that the decline of the T.S. is in
>part, at least, due to its members being spoon-fed in their Lodges.  So
>many seem to offer nothing more than a) Lecturers telling you what it is
>all about, and b) Group leaders telling you what it is all about.
>
>Here and there, no doubt, there may be some groups working *as groups*
>to share in the gathering and use of experience, but I have not seen
>much of it.  Groups of this kind are non-hierarchical, and do not offer
>much food for ego-trippers.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>

From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Jun 28 02:10:10 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:10:10 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606280315.XAA13462@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Dear Doss

        >7. Let us recognize that each one of us here is very very important
and
>we cannot offord to lose even a single subscriber.>

I think the ones who don't recognize that this is so are Alexis & Chuck.
They think they and their cursing is the only thing that's important. As
long as that continues, count me out. I'm interested in Theosophy not in
bitching & cursing, & gossipy conjecture.

Liesel

From ozren.skondric@kiss.uni-lj.si Thu Jun 27 04:03:14 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 06:03:14 +0200
From: Ozren Skondric 
Message-Id: <31D20802.6E97@kiss.uni-lj.si>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: jivamukti
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

J> We do not have
to be subject to our skandhas, anymore than we need be
subjected or controlled by the planets.  We have free will, and
can (and should) start making some new, and better, skandhas.
In fact, skandhas can be eliminated in what is called the
jivamukti.

Can somebody explain the concept of jivamukti.
 Thank you.

            Ozren
From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 05:59:43 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:59:43 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627055943.006c3af0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TS Flowery Verbage

At 03:52 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>A>Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
>>"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
>>fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
>>today's young people.
>>
>Alexis, it turns me off too, and I am not so young.  As a matter of fact,
>the sugary sweetness of typical TS verbage was the primary thing
>that Crowley had against Theosophy.  It doesn't ring true, and
>although probably well-intended, comes across as disingenuous.
>
>Jerry S.
>Member, TI
>
>
>Jerry: Crowley really didn't like Leadbeater either...called him "That
senile sodomite"...it's interesting isn't it that Crowley, Leadbeater,
Wedgewood, and Arundale all had OTO connections, but  the latter three were
connected through Theodore Reuss to the German OTO and Crowley had drawn
back from the Germans and set up his own branch, one unconnected to the
Saturnine Order.

I agree with you about the Victorian/Edwardian style. It does ring as
disingenuous, and to most young people today, totally phoney. The thing I've
discovered is that most intelligent young people, especially those who are
psychically talented, are totally disinterested in the "mechanics" of the
greater reality. Once they know it's there, they want to use it, and are
perfectly willing to be used BY it. But they could care less about all the
Mahayana Buddhist/Vedic technical details like devachan etc. They do like
ritual though!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 06:25:35 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:25:35 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627062535.006c44e8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Internet and Theosophy/TS

At 07:26 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>I wish the elected folks in the TS would get on these lists and alt.theosophy
>as well.  The internet is not only not going to go away, it is going to reach
>a hell of a lot more people than they ever will without it and as a result
>they will find themselves being attacked, unjustly at times, without having
>the means to respond.
>It is to the benefit of the elected officials of the TS to come out of hiding
>and respond in person and I hope they see that before it is too late.
>
>Chuck
>
>They won't

alex

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 06:33:32 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:33:32 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627063332.006b6f9c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Opportunity

At 07:27 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Well, I won't argue with you on this one.  If she had pulled that stuff on me
>I would feel the same way.  I'm probably slower to anger than you are, but I
>would have turned her into something that likes to eat flies.
>
>Chuck
>
>I think the thing that made me most angry was the imputations of dishonesty
when I had my Gold Card up to the Max paying for the damn thing!
The other really irritating thing was that the charges of "con-artistry"
were combined with charges of stupidity and incompetence, which of course,
are entirely contradictory. Now what she never forgave me for, was that The
Science And Spirit Exposition was an immense success and the T.S> convention
a total flop. That, by the way, was the convention where Larry Bendit and
Stephan Hoeller were passing out the cards that read: "T.S. + E.S. = B.S."!
They both spent most of their time at either my exposition or my house. By
the way the night before the Exposition John and I gave a Buffet Dinner
(Vegetarian of course) to 200 people. Joy was invited, we always do things
properly, but she didn't even respond.

How could one turn her into "something that eats flies" when she's already
something that draws them?

alex

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 06:43:28 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:43:28 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627064328.006cb368@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Some Judge Letters

At 08:19 PM 6/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>A few weeks ago a friend showed me a page of a program on
>W.Q. Judge that was given earlier this year. He suggested,
>in good fun, that the two letters on the page would make
>interesting reading on theos-l. The letters follow.
>
>-- Eldon
>
>----

They certainly do make interesting reading. alexis
>
>Paris, May 11, 1884
>
>Dear Olcott,
>
>I think it is time to start a section of the Society
>which adopts all the doctrine of the Masters and shall
>propagate it; all members of the Esoteric Section to
>subscribe to the doctrine. You and HPB to stay out of it.
>
>As ever,
>W.Q. Judge
>
>----

If Olcott and HPB are "to stay out of it" all the more reason for everyone
else to do so. Where do you think WQJ got the idea he had the authority to
write such a letter? And, secondly, do you think WQJ DID actually write such
a letter?

alexis
>
>New York, April 27, 1886
>
>Dear Olcott,
>
>I have demanded, privately, from Coues his resignation
>from the Board so as to give him a fair chance and shall
>then ask the board to consider it, so it may reach India
>unless they settle it.
>
>He is either a Jesuit, or a self-seeking ass.
>
>Coues writes and tells everybody that we must keep all
>secret; and seems to think that the whole work is astral
>body business, bells etc. etc. of that kind. His talk
>to the women he had that night in Higley's house was
>disgusting. Not a word of philosophy: all his power to
>see in the astral light, of which I discredit every
>word. But I said nothing then.
>
>As ever your brother,
>William Q. Judge
>
>
Eldon: Most people probably haven't got the slightest idea who Elliott Coues
was, why don't you elucidate?

alexis

From poulsen@dk-online.dk Thu Jun 27 12:00:04 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:00:04 -200
From: Kim Poulsen 
Message-Id: <01BB640F.9D474000@x.dko.global-one.dk>
Subject: Re: request to ALL
Encoding: 18 TEXT

KPJ:
>At the risk of getting flamed for asking this, would y'all
>please make your personal insults in personal e-mail?

Alan:
>I second the motion.


   So do I. And not "To all", - but to all parts in this: to those who seem
to find themselves at the focii of every argument of this kind.
   This terrible state of human interaction at its lowest denominator
has drained me of any wish to contribute for the time being, - and much
hope for the future too. Utterly depressing! These fiendish exchanges of
personal frictions and elemental squabble has nothing to do among subjects
pertaining to spirit - they create an atmosphere murderous of any
aspirations.

  Kim

From RAINGER@delphi.com Thu Jun 27 13:57:52 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:57:52 -0500 (EST)
From: RAINGER@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Information Wanted
Message-Id: <01I6EBRKZ8F68X4FYF@delphi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Dear Alexis

The Esoteric Section in England is a bit of a joke -
apart from the fact that they have considerable assets.

Recently we had a new "Secretary" for the esoteric section
who discovered that a good many of the names on her list were
of people who were actually dead!  Still, perhaps being in the
esoteric section means they can communicate with the dead!
She is now conducting a recruiting drive - would you believe -
as they existing membership appears to have an average age of
eighty.

Mind you, the same can be said of the TS itself, here in England,
particularly the administration - where two members on the
Executive Council of 15 are over eighty.  It is the administration
here in England which is rigid and concerned with political
shenanigans, stifling the spiritual growth of the society.

The same is not true of many of the lodges, scattered throughout
the country.  Some of them are very lively indeed and have a
much younger membership.  Many of them are talking about becoming
independent groups rather than part of the whole TS in England.
This may be just talk, and it may change when a new General
Secretary is elected next year - depends who it is.

That is, if there is a TS in England next year.  The present
administration have almost bankrupted the TS with their
incompetence. The trouble is most of them have no knowledge of
business or finance and they have continually made the wrong
decisions with their investments.  The other problem they have
inherited - not their fault - is an unwieldy headquarters building
which is expensive to run, and difficult to sell, and costs them
far more than they collect in membership dues each year.
They also have a white elephant of a country estate, dearly loved by
the elderly members who live there, but making a steady loss
every year.  At the moment this is covered by the investments
but the question is for how long?

I know this is not confidential information.  It is available to
all members over here if they wish to look for it.  However, I
had first had experience of all this because for two years I was
National Treasurer.  I got out because of the political in-fighting
and the lust for power.  I now run an independent group here in
York.

I still care about theosphy (with a small "t") and spend a
considerable amount of my time lecturing to lodges and groups
throughout Britain.


As for the magazines - I already have from the States, Gnosis, Quest,
and publications from Pasadena and Point Loma.  If you know of any
others I would be grateful for names and addresses.
In England I have Kindred Spirit, Prediction etc.

Best wishes - Michael

MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
22 Prices Lane
York YO2 1AL
England

Tel:01904 670203
E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 27 12:59:42 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:59:42 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606271259.OAA26635@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: science + religion = theosophy


Chris>I'm curious as to how "process" theosophists (such as Alexis) view the
"science+religion=theosophy" theme.

Chris: in addition I'm curious as to what *arguments* 'process' theosophists
have to dismiss core-theosophy (HPB & Mahatma Letters) as irrelevant.
The point is, the 'process' theosophists are sorely lacking in arguments
*or* just not presenting them (I'll except Jerry Schueler with whom
I've had interesting discussions on chaos, karma, etc. - but even
chaos can fit into the framework of theosophical teachings about conflict
of wills and Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma aspects of the cosmos)

I'll except Alexis too, as he said he would present his views and arguments
in the near future. That leaves a lot of other 'process' theosophists
who have not presented *arguments* against the Theosophical teachings
(maybe I've left some of them out who *did* present arguments against
core teachings, but I'm not aware of that)

To make my point a little bit clearer I will point out that no-one
has made a real case against the doctrine of cycles, of which reincarnation
is one example only. Well, I submit that it is next to impossible
to do so, because cycles abund in nature. Your own heart-beat and
respiratory process are clear examples of that.
Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
this example. Plato's ~Phaedo~ is excellent stuff in this regard.

Another intricate topic is that of structure-function-order in the universe.
There are people on this list, myself included, who have some experiences
of seeing angels (not merely devas),elementals etc.
Now, what does this mean? When we see beings from certain planes/spheres
of life what can we imply? That there is more to nature than what is visible
to our ordinary senses. But what is it all about? Many acknowledge the
existence of other planes/spheres of life. So, there is some *structure*
or *order* there, how else could it function? Nobody on this list has
drawn publicly (on this list) any conclusions about that, as far as I know.
This is to my *amazement*. How on earth (heaven, hell) can there be no
structure in this universe. And if my point is acknowledged, why not
discuss some of the implications of this??

To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
Arguments and alternatives, please !

Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
who try to think for themselves.


Martin

From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 27 12:59:50 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:59:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606271259.OAA26657@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: science + religion = theosophy??


 Christopher Allen
 writes
>I'm curious as to how "process" theosophists (such as Alexis) view the
>"science+religion=theosophy" theme.
>
>Chris

Alan>Makes no sense to me at all, whatever you call it. Science+religion is
>an amalgamation of two impossible terms.
>
>There are sciences, and there are religions.  "Science" is an
>abstraction, and "Religion" is an abstraction - but then so is
>"Theosophy" in its proper meaning.

>Let me put my point of view simply "Apples+oranges=apples+oranges."


Alan: the 'equation': science+religion=theosophy was kind of a playful
thing constructed by me to attract attention to my article on theosophy
on talk.religion.newage (I posted it on september, 1994).
The terms 'science' and 'religion' in this 'equation' do not refer
to the current concepts of it, but to future developments as you can
gather when you read my article on the 7 jewels.
Sciences (such as psychology, but also the so-called exact sciences)
in future times will incorporate new concepts, such as an integrative
 field of energy in which so-called particle-waves are correlated
and inter-correlated. Even now there already is the concept of the
 quantum-field from which particles arise and disappear into.
 Psychology has its spiritual-oriented versions, which indicate
that even now there's already a place for spiritual experiences
within science [humanities]. Obviously I'm not talking about
dogmatized religion, but about the more mystical aspects, psychical
and transcendental experiences. I'm also using the word 'religion'
in its original sense 'religare' - to bind back - the practice
of establishing a conscious bond with the Divine element within
the (extended) human constitution.


In my article I describe spirituality, philosophy and science as
three ways of perceiving the (abstract) reality.
Theosophy can be a synthesis of these three aspects. I'd say that
the first two aspects clearly have a place in T/theosophy. As to science,
there could be done a greater effort by T/theosophists to understand
(abstract) reality regarding this aspect (research into the structure,
 function and order of the cosmos, including humanity).
This would have an enormous impact on science eventually,
if something comes out of this research-effort of course.
Theosophy is said to have a great impact on science in the
end of last century and the beginning of this one. No longer do scientists
believe in indivisible matter, but rather they see matter as a form of
concretised energy. So, there is far more to this theme than some believe.

I could elaborate more, but this short overview will illustrate
my point sufficiently, I hope.


Martin


From euser@euronet.nl Thu Jun 27 12:59:58 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:59:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606271259.OAA26672@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Science + Religion = Theosophy

Chuck>However, if we replace science with knowledge, we can rewrite the
equation as theosopy-knowledge=religion.

Chuck: Hilarious!


Martin

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 14:28:39 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:28:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960627093129.260f74c8@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Information Wanted

Hi

thanks for sharing the information. recently I heard that the average age of
the residents at Krotona the US HQ of ES, is in upper 80's (yes eighties)
and with very minimal younger members coming in. If this trend continues,
there will not be many left when we are in 21st century.

It is sad to see one of the active sections TS (I mean British) is in such a
bad shape at the HQ level. I hope something drastically done to turn things
around soon.

MK Ramadoss
----------------------



At 09:01 AM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Alexis
>
>The Esoteric Section in England is a bit of a joke -
>apart from the fact that they have considerable assets.
>
>Recently we had a new "Secretary" for the esoteric section
>who discovered that a good many of the names on her list were
>of people who were actually dead!  Still, perhaps being in the
>esoteric section means they can communicate with the dead!
>She is now conducting a recruiting drive - would you believe -
>as they existing membership appears to have an average age of
>eighty.
>
>Mind you, the same can be said of the TS itself, here in England,
>particularly the administration - where two members on the
>Executive Council of 15 are over eighty.  It is the administration
>here in England which is rigid and concerned with political
>shenanigans, stifling the spiritual growth of the society.
>
>The same is not true of many of the lodges, scattered throughout
>the country.  Some of them are very lively indeed and have a
>much younger membership.  Many of them are talking about becoming
>independent groups rather than part of the whole TS in England.
>This may be just talk, and it may change when a new General
>Secretary is elected next year - depends who it is.
>
>That is, if there is a TS in England next year.  The present
>administration have almost bankrupted the TS with their
>incompetence. The trouble is most of them have no knowledge of
>business or finance and they have continually made the wrong
>decisions with their investments.  The other problem they have
>inherited - not their fault - is an unwieldy headquarters building
>which is expensive to run, and difficult to sell, and costs them
>far more than they collect in membership dues each year.
>They also have a white elephant of a country estate, dearly loved by
>the elderly members who live there, but making a steady loss
>every year.  At the moment this is covered by the investments
>but the question is for how long?
>
>I know this is not confidential information.  It is available to
>all members over here if they wish to look for it.  However, I
>had first had experience of all this because for two years I was
>National Treasurer.  I got out because of the political in-fighting
>and the lust for power.  I now run an independent group here in
>York.
>
>I still care about theosphy (with a small "t") and spend a
>considerable amount of my time lecturing to lodges and groups
>throughout Britain.
>
>
>As for the magazines - I already have from the States, Gnosis, Quest,
>and publications from Pasadena and Point Loma.  If you know of any
>others I would be grateful for names and addresses.
>In England I have Kindred Spirit, Prediction etc.
>
>Best wishes - Michael
>
>MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
>22 Prices Lane
>York YO2 1AL
>England
>
>Tel:01904 670203
>E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
>
______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 14:30:58 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:30:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: ramadoss@eden.com
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960627093347.260f5bb4@mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Information Wanted

Hi

Are you subscribed to listening-l which is the Jiddu Krishnamurti maillist?
There is also a www for KFA where you may find announcements of K related
meetings and seminars and gatherings.

MK Ramadoss


______________________________________________________________________
******** Peace to all living beings*****************

         M K Ramadoss

From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 15:28:31 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:28:31 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627112830_565222264@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

Alex,
I can't help but think that they are terrified of something, but I am not
sure what it is.  I don't think it's losing their power because surely in
their saner moments they know how little power they really have.  It must be
something far deeper.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 15:29:40 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:29:40 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627112939_565223155@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

Alex,
Actually, I have crossed her during the 1990 election debacle and so has
Gerda, on a number of occasions.  I must confess I find her behavior towards
you and JRC strange and indefensible.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 15:28:42 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:28:42 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627112841_565223240@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TS Flowery Verbage

Jerry,
They were trying to be Victorian gentlefolk and it didn't work real well then
and now just sounds silly.

Chuck
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 14:42:48 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:42:48 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: x = theosophy
In-Reply-To: <199606271259.OAA26635@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606271259.OAA26635@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser
 writes
>Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
>into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
>some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
>teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
>try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
>to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
>In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
>who try to think for themselves.

In my view, theosophy *requires* that we think for ourselves.  We must
also therefore take into account the possibility that when questioning
the thoughts of others ("founders," "core theosophy writers," etc.) we
need to even more rigorously question our own.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Jun 27 16:10:22 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:10:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: An interesting message
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi

We have seen many messages here by many who are deeply interested in
Theosophy. However there is much divergence about the "language" that
some of use. I thought the following message I picked up will be of
interest to some of us in this context.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss

> Date: 27 Jun 96 11:37:03 EDT
> From: Juergen Schuster <100771.1274@CompuServe.COM>
> Subject: Re: Juergen List (formerly the K Discussion List)

Hi Michael,

thanks for your marketing . You should'nt take me to
serious ! But if you quote me, you should only quote
my writings and not distort it at your convenience. I think
the people here will notice that and it isn't such a good
marketing for you .

But I'm happy, that you react! No matter how, it's OK if you
are angry and I appreciate it, that you have the courage to
complain! This is the first step! Be honest to yourself
and have the courage to express yourself! Not only being
artificial nice, because you want to be a lovely person!

You're welcome!

Juergen


From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 14:39:11 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:39:11 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: process = theosophy
In-Reply-To: <199606271259.OAA26635@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606271259.OAA26635@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser
 writes
>Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
>for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
>when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
>periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
>Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
>this example.

This is observable phenomena, and the periodic manifestation is part of
a process, is it not?  When the T.S. was founded, there was not a single
automobile in the world.  Yes, there is periodicity, but it *is itself*
subject to process and change.  It is possible that the underlying
"laws" which we might care to call "ancient wisdom" or even
"demonstrable fact* may be immutable, but if so, their effects and
consequences within time are *not.*

Another working hyposthesis for you:

Devachan changes (process) according to the nature and quality of its
inhabitants.

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From poulsen@dk-online.dk Thu Jun 27 22:50:06 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:50:06 -200
From: Kim Poulsen 
Message-Id: <01BB646A.5A8FB8E0@x.dko.global-one.dk>
Subject: Re: Theosophy for Beginners is True...
Encoding: 21 TEXT

Jerry S writing to Richard Ihle:
>
>>Americans are a lot smarter than 19th-century
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Hindu or Buddhists students, ..........
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Oh, you tempt me, Jerry, into saying something I would surely regret, -
more than any man I can remember just now. This sentece has that wonderful
triple quality though: It can stand for itself and still be hilarious,
without intent to be so.
:-) (Imagine me laughing like JRC when he has one of those days. This made
MY day)
   Now I have evened up your karma and can go on my vacation - see you all
in 14 days time!

In friendship,

Kim



From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 19:44:02 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:44:02 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627194402.006c3ecc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Information Wanted

At 09:01 AM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Alexis
>
>The Esoteric Section in England is a bit of a joke -
>apart from the fact that they have considerable assets.

Michael:

The "Esoteric Sections" are more than a bit of a joke, but they are also
ringing the death knell of the society. They differ only as the national
character of the countries they're in differ. But, they all do have
considerable assets, as do the national sections. I, for one, am slowly
coming to believe that under the direction of the Adyar E.S. they are
attempting to "get rid" of all non-E.S. members. Their actions would
indicate this clearly, but I, for one, can really ascertain no motivation,
though my domestic partner thinks they may be acting under the guidance of
some malevolent non-physical entity ( or perhaps the hallucination of such).
>
>Recently we had a new "Secretary" for the esoteric section
>who discovered that a good many of the names on her list were
>of people who were actually dead!  Still, perhaps being in the
>esoteric section means they can communicate with the dead!
>She is now conducting a recruiting drive - would you believe -
>as they existing membership appears to have an average age of
>eighty.

Here too, the only problem is one wonders if some of them are aware they
passed over?
>
>Mind you, the same can be said of the TS itself, here in England,
>particularly the administration - where two members on the
>Executive Council of 15 are over eighty.  It is the administration
>here in England which is rigid and concerned with political
>shenanigans, stifling the spiritual growth of the society.

Here too.
>
>The same is not true of many of the lodges, scattered throughout
>the country.  Some of them are very lively indeed and have a
>much younger membership.  Many of them are talking about becoming
>independent groups rather than part of the whole TS in England.
>This may be just talk, and it may change when a new General
>Secretary is elected next year - depends who it is.

Well, if they study Alice Bailey or Zen they may find themselves actually
independent because Adyar has ejected several Lodges for "Un-theosophical
behaviour".
>
>That is, if there is a TS in England next year.  The present
>administration have almost bankrupted the TS with their
>incompetence. The trouble is most of them have no knowledge of
>business or finance and they have continually made the wrong
>decisions with their investments.  The other problem they have
>inherited - not their fault - is an unwieldy headquarters building
>which is expensive to run, and difficult to sell, and costs them
>far more than they collect in membership dues each year.
>They also have a white elephant of a country estate, dearly loved by
>the elderly members who live there, but making a steady loss
>every year.  At the moment this is covered by the investments
>but the question is for how long?

The TSA hasn't got those problems it's really over-funded! It's also
dreadfully mean (in the British sense of the word) with it's monies.
>
>I know this is not confidential information.  It is available to
>all members over here if they wish to look for it.  However, I
>had first had experience of all this because for two years I was
>National Treasurer.  I got out because of the political in-fighting
>and the lust for power.  I now run an independent group here in
>York.
>
>I still care about theosphy (with a small "t") and spend a
>considerable amount of my time lecturing to lodges and groups
>throughout Britain.
>
Michael: A lot of us care very deeply about small "t" theosophy, but we are
subjected to the same kind of persecution by super-annuated Theosophists who
are unused to any kind of disagreement. They'd much rather sit around
discussing Devachan, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, etc. but any questions as to
what theosophy actually is, or where it's going, are seen as divisive,
disruptive, rude, and un-brotherly. But, we "little "T" folks are not going
to go away.

>As for the magazines - I already have from the States, Gnosis, Quest,
>and publications from Pasadena and Point Loma.  If you know of any
>others I would be grateful for names and addresses.
>In England I have Kindred Spirit, Prediction etc.
>
>Best wishes - Michael
>
>MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS
>22 Prices Lane
>York YO2 1AL
>England
>
>Tel:01904 670203
>E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com
>
Michael:

I am a hopeless bibliophile, if you have a catalog I'd love to receive it!
snail mail address:Alexis Dolgorukii   Tel: 415 - 861 - 1936
                   16-A Henry Street
                   San Francisco, Ca.
                   94114-1215

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 19:45:22 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:45:22 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627194522.006d2420@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Science + Religion = Theosophy

At 09:03 AM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Chuck>However, if we replace science with knowledge, we can rewrite the
>equation as theosopy-knowledge=religion.
>
>Chuck: Hilarious!
>
>
>Martin
>
>
>Chuck:

I agree with Martin, it is "hilarious" but it's also very wise!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Thu Jun 27 20:33:33 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:33:33 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960627203333.006caf18@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 09:02 AM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Chris: in addition I'm curious as to what *arguments* 'process' theosophists
>have to dismiss core-theosophy (HPB & Mahatma Letters) as irrelevant.

Martin: I dismiss the "Mahatma Letters" as irrelevant because , having
studied them over a course of some 30 years I have found them to be so
mutually contradictory and lacking in real content that it is not simply
that I consider them to be irrelevant but that I don't consider them to be
valid. In other words I believe them to be not frauds, but not real either.
I believe the HPB produced them and apported them whenever she needed
particularly unarguable support in a particular goal of hers. If she could
apport tea cups (and I believe she could) then this would be a really simple
feat. Basically I also have to say that I don't find the "Mahatma Letters"
particularly intellectually or ethically impressive. While I am very
impressed by "Isis" and some of HPB's other writings, the Secret doctrine is
just far too flawed a document to become part of any "core belief" of mine.
But as you know I am planning a book on that particular subject.

>The point is, the 'process' theosophists are sorely lacking in arguments
>*or* just not presenting them (I'll except Jerry Schueler with whom
>I've had interesting discussions on chaos, karma, etc. - but even
>chaos can fit into the framework of theosophical teachings about conflict
>of wills and Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma aspects of the cosmos)

I would have supposed by now that you would know that I, at least, consider
discussions on "Karma", "Skandhas", "Devachan", Nirmanakaya Buddhas" and
"Shiva?Vishnu?Brahma" to be aspects of the Buddhist and Hindu religions and
as such perhaps interesting in a 'Second Object" comparative religion sense,
but I don't believe them to be intrinsic to small "t" theosophy of what I
call "Process  theosophy". If you define our discussion in terms of an a
priori acceptance of those religious aspects, then how can we have a
discussion when I, at least (I can't speak for others) reject the religious
approach to theosophy absolutely?
>

>To make my point a little bit clearer I will point out that no-one
>has made a real case against the doctrine of cycles, of which reincarnation
>is one example only. Well, I submit that it is next to impossible
>to do so, because cycles abund in nature. Your own heart-beat and
>respiratory process are clear examples of that.

What I see you as doing here is reversing the old metaphysical axiom of
Hermes Trismegistus and making it "As below, so above". As I see it your
heartbeat and respiratory cycle and male-female and day-night and life-death
are all physical plane phenomena and have absolutely no correlation within
the greater and totally non-physical realities. Sure cycles and duality
abound in nature, but nature is physical and the greater reality is NOT!
That kind of thinking, and imaging of non-physicality by projecting physical
phenomena onto it, is entirely solipsistic and anthropocentric. As far as I
am concerned, in post-physical reality dualism doesn't exist.

>Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
>for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
>when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
>periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
>Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
>this example. Plato's ~Phaedo~ is excellent stuff in this regard.

But when one views that all that exists is part and parcel of the Unified
Field of Energy-Intelligence it comes our differently.
>
>Another intricate topic is that of structure-function-order in the universe.
>There are people on this list, myself included, who have some experiences
>of seeing angels (not merely devas),elementals etc.

Well as a Shaman, I've certainly had my share of experiences of that kind.
BUT I prefer to call them energy or light beings, and to differentiate them
by their energy levels rather than some imaginary religious hierarchy. As a
Shaman, I find the "(not merely devas)" aside to be a little egotistical.
What do you mean by it? I find a physical person trying to socially grade
non-physical centers-of-consciousness just a hair pretentious.

>Now, what does this mean? When we see beings from certain planes/spheres
>of life what can we imply? That there is more to nature than what is visible
>to our ordinary senses. But what is it all about? Many acknowledge the
>existence of other planes/spheres of life. So, there is some *structure*
>or *order* there, how else could it function? Nobody on this list has
>drawn publicly (on this list) any conclusions about that, as far as I know.

Martin: Most people, and I include most theosophists/Theosophists in that
category, don't ever in their life"see' a non-physical
center-of-consciousness. But, that we all believe there is more to the
nature of reality that which presents itself to our physical senses is why
most of us, if not all of us, are addicted to theosophy?Theosophy. It seems
to me though that it is important not to impose physical level only notions
of things like "order and structure" on a reality to which physicality is
entirely irrelevant.

>This is to my *amazement*. How on earth (heaven, hell) can there be no
>structure in this universe. And if my point is acknowledged, why not
>discuss some of the implications of this??

Martin: Does the "structure" and reality of the non-physical universe have
to conform to the physical perceptions of a human being? No it doesn't.
Human Beings are of a really low order of reality, their views of the
greater reality are entirely limited by their lesser reality.
My primary complaint about "Core Theosophy" is that it tries to impose human
conceptions of order and structure on a reality to which those things may
very well be entirely irrelevant.
>
>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>Arguments and alternatives, please !

Martin the trouble is that I somehow feel, especially after reading that
last paragraph that you don't take either us, or our arguments seriously. In
view of our new determination to try to keep things amicable on the list,
I'd like to ask you to retract that "Too smart to believe in any of this
core theosophy nonsense" remark. It's irrelevant to our discussion and
hardly either an "argument and alternative".
It makes you sound defensive and as a psychologist you should know that is
totally counter-productive. Despite your disclaimer it sounds an awful lot
like a "flame".
>
>Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
>into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
>some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
>teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
>try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
>to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
>In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
>who try to think for themselves.

Martin: You may thank the administrations at Adyar, and of the TSA, and the
uLT and the Pasadena Society for that "division" it's an official
theosophical thing. It was meant to cast people who REALLY think for
themselves out into "outer darkness" and I suppose out of "Theosophy" as
well. No offense meant but I do not see parroting someone like G de P's
opinions (or Leadbeaters, or even Blavatsky's) as thinking for one's self. I
think it very important to keep in mind that all those books represent
merely the opinions of their writers, it's when people treat those opinions
as "received truth" or "Gospel" that I begin to think of those people as
religious. I think this is one of those very frequent occasions when we have
to say "If the shoe fits...wear it".
>
>
>Martin
>
>
Alexis Dolgorukii>

From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:10:11 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:10:11 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191010_341735020@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Some Judge Letters

Eldon,
Interesting stuff.  You know, of course, that the Coues mentioned is the
infamous Dr. Coues of the "Day by day, I am getting better and better,"
cliche.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:11:15 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:11:15 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191114_341736273@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Women Adepts

Doss,
Didn't her Kundalini dribble out? :-)
I see no rational reason why a woman cannot be an adept, but then no one ever
accused the Bishop of being rational.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:10 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:10 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191209_341736320@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: stuff about convention

Doss,
The next president will have everyone wear feathers in their heads and do
Sufi dancing.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:31 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:31 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191230_341736461@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TS Flowery Verbage

Alex,
Not only are they great at ritual, but they open one fucking mean vortex.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:11:17 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:11:17 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191117_341736544@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Opportunity

Alex,
I'll have to post the spell.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:11:29 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:11:29 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191127_341736492@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Internet and Theosophy/TS

Alex,
You're right.  John Algeo told me as much when I invited him to post on
alt.theosophy.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Jun 27 23:12:34 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:34 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960627191233_341736701@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: request to ALL

Kim,
Haven't you figured out by now that theosophists can be very fiendish people?

Chuck
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Jun 27 23:19:51 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 19:19:51 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Message-Id: <199606272319.TAA14391@leo.vsla.edu>
Subject: Martin vs. Process Theosophists


Martin, you seem angry at "a lot of other `process' theosophists
who have not presented *arguments* against the Theosophical
teachings."  Alexis and Jerry S. are exempt, you say.  But since process
Theosophist is AFAIK Alexis's term, and no one else has
explicitly claimed it, I don't understand who these miscreants
are who ought to have presented arguments against the
Theosophical teachings.  They are the people who are "too smart
to believe any of this core theosophy nonsense," but who are
they?  You yourself say that you regard such a division as very
simplistic and "this labeling as a kind of *insult*" yet you
seem to be lashing out at some unnamed people you are dividing
off and labeling.  I just don't get it.

On the chance that for some reason I may be one of the people
targeted by your complaint, let me state that I have absolutely
no inclination to present arguments against the Theosophical teachings
as such.  I have presented arguments about the literalistic, fundamentalistic
way some Theosophists approach them.  And the stultifying effect this has had
on the movement as a whole.

I agree with Alexis about `process theosophy' to the extent that theosophy
is primarily a *way of knowing* and not an *object of
knowledge*.  What is there to be mad at in that?  Those who obsess over
theosophy as a body of doctrines are IMO mistaking the pointing finger for the
moon.  I am tremendously appreciative to HPB, G de P et al for
formulating that body of doctrines, and feel that I have gained
a lot from their study.  But I also feel that I wasted a chunk
of my life mistaking the finger for the moon, imagining that I
knew something when all I did was parrot others.  Ultimately the whole point
is to become a theosopher, one who theosophizes-- rather than a
Theosophist, one who believes what someone else says about
theosophy.

Don't you agree?
From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Jun 28 01:05:34 1996
Date: 27 Jun 96 21:05:34 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Theosophy for Beginners is True Too
Message-Id: <960628010533_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM>

>For every person that may have studied the basic, most
>simply view of the esoteric doctrines, there are perhaps
>thousands that are starving for those simple, soul-healing
>ideas.

	Eldon, of course I agree with you for the most
part.  But the idea of an endless Wheel of Reincarnation
and endless karma, of cycling forever without end, is an
exoteric idea that I believe will only hurt more than it helps.
Buddha's message is that this Wheel can be stopped,
and that there is a Way to end the reincarnation cycles.
This message apparently never caught on with the
early theosophical writers, yet the hope that it inspires
is what led me into Buddhism and Yoga before I discovered
Theosophy.
	My own feeling here is that it was a deliberate
oversight.  Why?  Because had it been taught, then the
question of how would arise.  This would demand
techniques, and open the Pandora's Box of psychism,
Halls of Magic, and so on.  So the safer path of altruism
and karma yoga was adopted--but these lead to better
karma, not its elimination nor even its reduction.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Jun 28 01:05:39 1996
Date: 27 Jun 96 21:05:39 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Jivamukti
Message-Id: <960628010539_76400.1474_HHL60-3@CompuServe.COM>

>Can somebody explain the concept of jivamukti.
> Thank you.
>            Ozren

	The word is Hindu and basically means one who is
karmaless.  The jivamukti (literally "a released jiva") reaches a
state or condition of jivamukta -- karma-less-ness.  It means that
one can eliminate one's personal karma while living--this being
the last incarnation.  The concept can also be found in Mahayana
Buddhism where such a one enters nirvana after death.
	Perhaps the single-most bothersome thing that I
have found with TS literature is its refusal to discuss the
possibility of eliminating one's karma.  Most TS literature
says that after we become chelas we still need 7 more incarnations,
which is a silly and pernicious (because self-defeating) idea.
The literature is all geared to making our karma "better" by
doing good deeds.  But even HPB acknowledges that golden
chains are just as binding as iron, and she clearly says that
even good karma must be eliminated.  she taught:
"We should bear in mind that, in becoming Karmaless,
both good as well as bad karma have to be got rid of, and that
Nidanas started the acquisition of good karma, are as binding
as those induced in the other direction.  For both are karma."
INNER GROUP TEACHINGS  2nd Ed. p. 10.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Jun 28 01:05:37 1996
Date: 27 Jun 96 21:05:37 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Theosophy for Beginners is True Too
Message-Id: <960628010536_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>

Doss:
> Can you elaborate on this statement?

	It didn't come out the way I intended.  I mean
that most people today require more logic and reason
than those who are willing to accept beliefs; or that
science is stronger today than religion.  Religious
people are willing to accept karma as a law of
justice, of rewards and punishments in the same
way a Christian accepts justice after death in a
heaven or hell.  Most people today no longer accept
faith in a transpersonal deity or principle to bring
about justice in an after-death life when it is obviously
apparent that there is no justice here in this one.  But
this should not mean that we have to throw out the
doctrine of karma.  Karma does not dispense rewards
or punishments--it only looks that way to our human
minds.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 00:17:45 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:17:45 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Bee
Mime-Version: 1.0


Bee Brown has unsubscribed to all the theos-lists, and therefore will
not see any messages posted there.

Info forwarded at her request.

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 Jun 28 02:12:59 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:12:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Theosophy for Beginners is True Too
In-Reply-To: <960628010536_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Jerry:

glad you clarified. while there are millions of people who blindly
believe in the various concepts and ideas, it has always been
stressed to serious students in India for to question everything and not
to accept anything on faith or tradition or hearsay.

This has led to a very unique characteristic of thinking men and women of
India. If you put ten of them in a room and ask them to come up with a
solution for a problem or plan for a project, then will rarely come up
with one. But they are going to come up with 100 different ones.

Anyone who complains about the various serious discussions that we see
here, will be surprised if 10 men/women from India join our maillists and
see the action generated (unless these are afraid of questioning party
line).

Thanks for clarification.

	MK Ramadoss


On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote:

> Doss:
> > Can you elaborate on this statement?
>
> 	It didn't come out the way I intended.  I mean
> that most people today require more logic and reason
> than those who are willing to accept beliefs; or that
> science is stronger today than religion.  Religious
> people are willing to accept karma as a law of
> justice, of rewards and punishments in the same
> way a Christian accepts justice after death in a
> heaven or hell.  Most people today no longer accept
> faith in a transpersonal deity or principle to bring
> about justice in an after-death life when it is obviously
> apparent that there is no justice here in this one.  But
> this should not mean that we have to throw out the
> doctrine of karma.  Karma does not dispense rewards
> or punishments--it only looks that way to our human
> minds.
>
> 	Jerry S.
> 	Member, TI

From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Jun 28 02:46:16 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:46:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Internet and Theosophy/TS
In-Reply-To: <960627191127_341736492@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:

> Alex,
> You're right.  John Algeo told me as much when I invited him to post on
> alt.theosophy.
>
> Chuck
>
Not surprising. He also does not appear to like any modern day
communications such as FAX and appears he likes snailmail very much!

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From ozren.skondric@kiss.uni-lj.si Fri Jun 28 03:30:38 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 05:30:38 +0200
From: Ozren Skondric 
Message-Id: <31D351DE.78EE@kiss.uni-lj.si>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: jivamukti
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you for explaining the concept of jivamukti for me Jerry.
Regards.

        Ozren
From ozren.skondric@kiss.uni-lj.si Fri Jun 28 03:34:36 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 05:34:36 +0200
From: Ozren Skondric 
Message-Id: <31D352CC.BC5@kiss.uni-lj.si>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: request to ALL
References: <01BB640F.9D474000@x.dko.global-one.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kim Poulsen wrote:
>
> KPJ:
> >At the risk of getting flamed for asking this, would y'all
> >please make your personal insults in personal e-mail?
>
> Alan:
> >I second the motion.
>
>    So do I. And not "To all", - but to all parts in this: to those who seem
> to find themselves at the focii of every argument of this kind.
>    This terrible state of human interaction at its lowest denominator
> has drained me of any wish to contribute for the time being, - and much
> hope for the future too. Utterly depressing! These fiendish exchanges of
> personal frictions and elemental squabble has nothing to do among subjects
> pertaining to spirit - they create an atmosphere murderous of any
> aspirations.
>
>   Kim

Couldn't agree more.

       Ozren

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 22:22:22 1996
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:22:22 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <5sJOJCAegb0xEwpN@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: CWL05.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL05.TXT

This short document is a transcript of a letter from another
   source, details of which are given in the copy held here in
   England, though other copies may exist elsewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------

Letter from Judge Khandalavaka to Annie Besant, stated to be from
   Brooke's 'Neo-Theosophy Exposed,' page 442.

"Mr Khandalavaka was late Special Judge, Poona, and E.S. member,
   and member of Mrs Besant's Theosophical Educational Trust."

"Copy of Exhibit in C.C. No. 1778 of 1913, Poona, 23rd Aug. 1906.

"Dear Sister Annie,

"After reading your E.S.T. letter regarding Mr. Leadbeater I have
   thought fit to write to you, as it appears to me that the
   well-being of the T.S. must seriously be taken to now.

"The whole of L's attitude seems to indicate that he believed the
   foul practice was permissible in Occultism and that his Master
   would not object to it. (You say that 'in fact excitement and
   misuse of the sexual organs is one way of stimulating astral
   powers and is largely used in schools of pseudo-occultism.') Is
   this statement correct?  Who is there who can say he has
   personal knowledge that a particular person took to exciting and
   misusing the sexual organs and thereby acquired astral powers?
   We are too apt to make these statements too lightly.  It is
   hardly correct again to speak of pseudo-occult schools and that
   they largely take to sexual practices for gaining occult powers.

"(You have put it before the E.S.T. members that excitement and
   misuse of the sexual organs leads to acquirement of astral
   powers.)

"There are good, bad and indifferent members, and the sexual
   instinct once getting the upper hand in some members, your
   statement may be taken hold of and the practice resorted to, to
   have some inkling at least of astral powers.

"(In trying to answer an awkward question you have made the
   statement that Leadbeater may have acquired astral powers only.)

"He, however, cannot be said to possess merely astral powers.  He
   has written a regular manual on the Devachanic Plane, and in
   other books of his, and speeches and pamphlets, he has spoken
   and written about the higher planes in great detail."

[End of Document]

Uploaded (from a photocopy) by Alan Bain, June 1996.
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 17:13:12 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 18:13:12 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL07.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0


CWL07.TXT

This is from a carbon copy of a transcript of an original letter
   from Helen I. Dennis.  Punctuation and variations between
   British and American English usage are as in the copy before me.
   - A.B.

-------------------------------------------

New York, N.Y., April 9th. 1906.

My Dear Mrs. Besant:-

Your letter of Feby. 26th. 1906 in reply to my letter of Jan.
   25th., preferring charges against Mr. Leadbeater, of teaching
   secret practices to boys, has been received.  I at once came to
   New York to consult with Mr. Fullerton and other E.S. and T.S.
   Officials, before framing my inevitable reply.

It is with deepest regret that I must write to you that your answer
   is most unsatisfactory to me and to the other signatories of the
   letter of Jany. 25th.

Perhaps you can imagine the inner conflict I have endured before
   writing the following letter, which stands for my conscience of
   right.

Your belief that Mr. L. teaches these theories only "in rare cases"
   to boys in trouble, is proved incorrect by the letter to Mr.
   Fullerton, in which Mr. L. himself explains making "One
   experiment" on a thirteen year old child, at that time immature
   even for his years and who did not reach puberty until three
   years later.

Up to the present time, it is known that four boys under the age of
   fourteen have been taught and one has been committed to a
   sanitarium for treatment of epilepsy which his physician claims
   to have been the result of self abuse.

Your claim that Mr. L. had agreed to discontinue these practices is
   tacitly refuted by his complete silence on this point in his
   letter to Mr. Fullerton, and by his own attitude of defence of
   the merits of his theory.

My argument and protest to you is therefore based on the ground of
   Mr. L's defence of the theory. I must protest that Theosophy is
   diametrically opposed to such a theory and that its ethics
   cannot tolerate the deception, hypocrisy and treachery practiced
   on the parents of these boys.

In common honesty, he should have made known his theory to the
   parents, instead of inculcating ideas of concealment from them.
   A fourth boy when questioned, replied that he must get
   permission from Mr. L. before he could answer.  He stated that
   he had been told by Mr. L. that he must not attempt to explain
   it to his parents as he would not be able to make them
   understand the theory. At present writing his mother can learn
   nothing further.

Equally in common honesty, those who follow Mr. L. as an occult
   leader, should know what he advocates, that all may decide for
   themselves, whether or not they will elect to follow and lend
   him their moral support.

That the crime of which Mr. L. stands self confessed can sanely be
   argued upon from the basis of "good motive" seems incredible.
   Such sex practices proposed as a substitute for and an
   improvement upon the marriage relation, strike at the very root
   of the physical welfare of the humans race and inevitably result
   in mental and moral degradation.

We who appeal to you as the head of the E.S.T. can but stand
   appalled at what seems to be your attitude of condoning this
   offence, by your public support, even though you disclaim
   approval of it.

It is an offence which would be recognized as a moral cancer in any
   worldly organization, and which would render one guilty of it, an
   outcast and an exile even in the secular professions or in any
   educational institution in America, and we hope and believe,
   anywhere in the civilized world.

When we learn that he has been licensed to stand before the world
   for twelve or fifteen years, with these persistent rumors
   stalking at his side, in Ceylon, in India, and in Europe, what
   can we understand?

When for all these years, he has allowed you to believe these
   rumors false and permitted you to hold him up before the world
   as a worthy exponent of Theosophical teachings of purity; when
   in the face of the facts that within the past few months, in
   answer to a petition, from India, that you depose him his place
   at your side, he even allowed your name to be used as a shield
   in an article in the February 1906 Theosophist, signed by
   Colonel Olcott, to the effect that these rumors were slanders
   and the vile imaginings of "Hysteriacs;" when this deliberate
   deception has been carried on for years; when finally actual
   proof reaches you from America, that these slanders are living,
   breathing, corrupting facts, and you reply to me that you "know
   that his motives are good and pure," what can we think?  What
   *are* good motives?

In the words of our beloved and honoured General Secretary, Mr.
   Fullerton, "we could weep tears of blood."

But should we as officials deal with the motives or the facts?  Is
   the point at issue one of personal friendship or one of official
   honor and support?  Should not the E.S. and the T.S. be, like
   Caesar's wife, above reproach and especially on the sex
   question?

By the code of even common worldly ethics, we had the right to
   confidently expect, that without an instant's delay, you would
   retire him into complete obscurity, thus taking the first step
   towards purging the Theosophical Society from within.

If such action would result from a purely worldly standpoint of
   ethics how much more should we rightly expect this evidence of
   purity in the Head of an Occult School?

A body which does not purge itself from within cannot live.  It
   must ultimately decay or be shattered by attacks from without.

I can only repeat that I protest and protest again that on this
   matter of honor and purity, I can accept no compromise, nor can
   I lend myself to the deception of E.S. and T.S. members that my
   standing silent would imply.

I have therefore laid the matter before Mr. Fullerton, the General
   Secretary, and the Executive Committee of the American Section,
   so that, that phase of the case has passed out of my hands.

The chaotic condition of mind, of an ever increasing number of
   members and officers of the E.S., as this knowledge is rapidly
   spreading, makes an organised unity of the School ever more and
   more remote, and in order to avoid the sham and pretense on my
   part it is necessary to do otherwise, I am therefore temporarily
   suspending certain activities of the School, such as admission
   of members, the issuance of documents, etc.  It is also my
   intention to suspend certain group activities wherever in my
   judgment it becomes necessary because of the development of
   circumstances and pending receipt of further instructions from
   you.

Deeply as I regret having to write such a letter as this, far more
   deeply do I deplore the circumstances that have made its writing
   necessary in the name of common honesty and purity.

(Signed) Helen I. Dennis.
   -----------------------------------------------

Transcribed and uploaded by Alan Bain, June 1996

---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 04:56:37 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:56:37 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628005636_144690200@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alan,
Then you get to fight the minotaur this time.  Ariadne tells me she's running
out of thread after the last time.

Theseus
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 04:57:36 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:57:36 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628005736_144690756@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alex,
It's sort of a running joke around here ever since the article in the AT by
Carol Ward about some nonsense involving people drawing labyrinths on the
ground, walking around in them and claiming great spiritual benefit from it.
Of the making of fools there is no end.

Chuck the Heretic
From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:13:40 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:13:40 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628061340.006c201c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

At 07:16 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Doss,
>In other words, let's keep giving them hell.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Chuck:

To quote Harry Truman: we dont give em hell, we just tell em the truth and
it seems like hell!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:15:14 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:15:14 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628061514.006ba3cc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

At 07:17 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>There is nothing quite as much fun as scaring the hell out of people at a
>Sunday School picnic.  Someday I shall have to tell you what a girlfriend and
>I did to one.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Did I ever tell you about the big ritual  I did at Mt. Shasta? And the 7th
Day Adventists and the 250 lb naked lady?

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:38:39 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:38:39 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628063839.006c3584@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

At 08:47 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960627204247.006c377c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>Russo-Hungarians.....we're not famous for self-discipline!
>>
>>alexei
>
>May you be the first to become famous for it ...
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>What and get ulcers and have a coronary? My Mother told me when I was
little that self-disicpline is bad for the health. She's 90 now, and has
never tried it for a second, so she must be correct!

There's an old Russian perception that my Grandfather taught me: "People who
don't know dispair can never know joy, people who don't know rage can never
know the joy of peacemaking, people who don't feel intensely, can never know
anything".

alexei

From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 06:34:46 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 02:34:46 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628023444_226841186@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

Alex,
No, you never told me that one.

Chuck
From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 07:21:23 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:21:23 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628072123.006dd73c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Welcome

At 12:59 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>It's sort of a running joke around here ever since the article in the AT by
>Carol Ward about some nonsense involving people drawing labyrinths on the
>ground, walking around in them and claiming great spiritual benefit from it.
>Of the making of fools there is no end.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Ah soooo! That is currently a major fad in the "new age" community and
there are Christian Churches participating in that too. There are some very
rich folks out here in California having boxwood hedges transplanted to
match famous mazes in england. It is very good for the horticulturists who
get the contracts...Biiiiig Bucks!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 19:58:40 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:58:40 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628195840.006e20a8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: All Pilgrims

At 02:40 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>No, you never told me that one.
>
>Chuck
>
>Well I will next time we talk. The reaction of the Shasta County sherrif
was hilarious!

alex

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 00:08:07 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:08:07 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Posting of CWL Material
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
"m.k. ramadoss"  writes
>No matter what kind of pro or against view each one of us have on CWL,
>the fact is that the material you posted is almost impossible to access
>for an ordinary member without going to a lot of trouble and expense. Now
>due to Internet, with the comfort of our homes, you have made the
>information accessible at no cost to us.
>
>Again thank you for the posts

A new angle on a theosophical order of service perhaps!  I am glad you
appreciate my efforts.  As I try to make clear, I am making available
*historical* material that we may learn from.  The distressing aspect of
the 1906-1909 period was not so much what people thought or taught or
believed, but the way in which it was dealt with, and, IMO, the attempts
to hide information from the membership.

As you say, we have the Internet now, and information is a keyboard and
a modem away ...

Thanks again for your encouragement.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 23:14:49 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:14:49 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628191448_342874456@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alex,
Maybe they are trying to defend themselves against roving bandit gangs on
horseback, which is what the mazes were really for in the first place.

Chuck the Heretic
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 17:19:34 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:19:34 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <03Wj$VAmQB1xEwB3@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Welcome
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960628072123.006dd73c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960628072123.006dd73c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>>It's sort of a running joke around here ever since the article in the AT by
>>Carol Ward about some nonsense involving people drawing labyrinths on the
>>ground, walking around in them and claiming great spiritual benefit from it.

I have no idea when this article appeared, but I know of one community
in England where this facility is available (free of charge) for anyone
to try, and to make of it what they will.  A woman I spoke to last week
tried it, and gained a lot from it.  If it works, as they say in show-
biz, then keep it in the act.

Difficult though it may be to believe [:-)] there are one or two people
who think that shamanism is nonsense.

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 Jun 29 00:13:14 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:13:14 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TI Web Page
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
JRC  writes
>Alan this is *wonderful* - who's the kind soul? Would you care to start
>the discussion ... just take a shot and offer suggestions for the Home
>Page (style, content, graphics & etc.) and the first few links? Anyone else?
>                                                               -JRC

Assuming it is still there, the graphic on the web page below looks OK
for starters.  I would personally like to see the TS motto, but without
the religious symbolism - especially that d...... swastika!  Maybe just
the uroboros serpent, plus the motto.

The first few links?  Not a single sanskrit or foreign language word!
Plain English for surfers to understand (could be your department, John
:-)).

Over ...

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 Jun 28 04:55:44 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:55:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Use of Vocabulary/Language
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi

We have seen a lot of heated exchange of opinions on the use of
language/vocabulary on theos-xxx list. As Internet is a new uncensored
medium, it is going to take some time to get used to it. Following is a
message on Krishnamurti List, and some of you may find the language not
acceptable, but it goes to show that the norms that apply to other
mediums of communication may not hold good of Internet.

MK Ramadosss

> Date: 28 Jun 96 00:18:19 EDT
> From: Michael Powell <73140.1517@CompuServe.COM>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Juergen List (formerly the K Discussion List)

Harold:>>Mr. Powell,

I've read your contributions, in the past, to this discussion group and
I don't think you have anything to offer me, or to many of the others.
You are rather, a distraction and I don't want to join anything for
which you have audacity to claim you are qualified to lead.  Especially
your claim  "I have experienced the same as Krishnamurti" is simply
your ego speaking.

Be the FOOL, and persist in this!  If you've taken charge of the K list
you are the "dumb sheep's" idiot leading the truly uncaring, and
passive blind. K. is K! Nobody is asking for another "self appointed"
clone of him, or of anybody else.

If the K. list is truly gone, and replaced by the ??Juergen List???,
removed by your hand, then, I want to be removed too.

If you review your stupid letter you will spot, an embarassing
plethora of idiotic, and childish self aggrandizements. GROW UP!<<

MP:Harold,

Sorry to have offended you, but you have missed the point. I am not Juergen and
most of that post was quotes from him. I am not clear how you could confuse us
from listening to the posts for the last several months. Rather than quick
condemnation, please question a bit and I will try  to respond as the situation
occurs.

Michael


From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 04:57:16 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:57:16 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628005714_144690683@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Science + Religion = Theosophy

Alex,
Of course it's very wise.  I wrote it. :-)

Chuck the Heretic
From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Jun 28 01:28:13 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:11:36
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606280514.AA14106@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Alternatives?

>For: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 

    Hello!
AMB> For example, CWL was completely wrong about life on Mars. His other
AMB> clairvoyant experiences may have been more accurate, or may not, but how
 Unfortunately, i haven't read what he wrote about  Mars.  But
there may be some hypothesis. Annie Besant wrote that for wat-
ching other world's life one has to create "indrias" borrowing
a matter of that world.  Our astronomes & astronauts of course
haven't such a perception devices, so they see nothing.
   Annie Besant wrote also,  that her & CWL's clairvoiance was
learned by different method. She explored astral world herself
and made mistakes herself,  and corrected herself.  Leadbeater
was tutored by a more experienced teacher.  This teacher asked
him "what do you see?" & corrected him if he  was  wrong.  So,
when he begun to explore himself,  he (imho) had no doubt,  if
even mistaken, because he was sure that teacher taught him go-
od, but  Annie Besant always doubted,  so her researches might
be more accurate.
   I borrowed  this information from AB's article "Superphysi-
cal researches" (I'm not sure in title) from Theosophist No  8
& 9 - 1912.  (Excluding last thought that is my own). I recom-
mend this article to all readers of this list because  she  in
very  strict form writes that theosophists have no doctrine to
believe in.  (You may quote it in letters to Adyar,  etc.) She
writes also, if doctrines would be crystallized (as they real-
ly did),  they will hold us in future (i.e. now) when we rein-
carnate in new bodies.

W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Jun 28 01:28:33 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:11:56
From: "Macnev Uri" 
Message-Id: <199606280514.AA14107@angel.elektra.ru>
Subject: --

Hello!

=========================
* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
* From : Kay Ziatz
=========================

Subject: Postings on CWL Controversy

For: alexis dolgorukii 

a> so-called "9th Initiation" he says "Even I have never encountered such a
a> being"...what does that say about his pretensions?
 Maybe... But  there are some letters by K.H.  to CWL (if they
aren't humbug),  so CWL might know K.H.  personally (in  those
letters K.H.  writes that karma of priest "caste" is very hard
and warns CWL that he could fail.) Masters like M. & K.H. have
6th (or 7th) initiation, as i've read somewhere.
  It should be noted,  too, that those numbers are too "oldfa-
shioned" -  only 3-rd initiation in our classification is  re-
ally 1-st.  1st & 2nd are rather disciple's level, as ABB wri-
tes.  It's because in prevoius epoques body control was impor-
tant, and hatha-yoga was main yoga,  so total physical control
was an object of 1-st initiation. So you shouldn't be frighte-
ned by huge numbers like 9 - it's only 7 ;)
  "Right" &  "Left" paths split after 2-nd,  so by this reason
3-rd should be regarded as really first, too.

a> also have a problem believing in ("ex-communists").
 If we accept reincarnation, all of us are ex-communists, or
ex-inquisitores, ex-cannibales,  etc.  If a man can change his
opinion in a new life, why can't he in the same?

bf> For example, I believe Alexis has said something to the effect
bf> that he believes HPB wrote most if not all of the Mahatma Let-
bf> ters.  I have no idea what Alexis has based this conclusion on
 But much worse - HBP didn't stopped then.
After that she wrote "letters on occult meditation" to A.Bailey,
lot of letters to E. Roerich and Letters of alive dead to E. Bar-
ker. She was a very productive writer, indeed ;)

a> Yelena Blavatskaya was, as I see her, an enthusiastic iconoclast, and I
a> admire her immensely for being so.
  Krishnamurti was even more. So there's a progress ;)

b> against the negatives. To me, it is obvious that both CWL and AB has done
b> A LOT of good. It is also quite obvious that they made serious mistakes.
 They were like N. Hruschov. Do you understand?

W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet

P.S. Because you're russian, i inform you about web site with
lot of theosophical literature in russian:
 http://www.topaz.kiev.ua/users/kirill
  ftp://www.topaz.kiev.ua/doc/jack_lib
I think it's only place of that kind (and may close down soon!!!)

Address for personal replies:
Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:00:05 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:00:05 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628060005.006cc430@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

At 06:55 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Actually, I have crossed her during the 1990 election debacle and so has
>Gerda, on a number of occasions.  I must confess I find her behavior towards
>you and JRC strange and indefensible.
>
>Chuck
>
>Chuck:

You will notice that in both instances JRC and myself, we were trying to
actualize a broad scope "reach out" to the public. I with the exposition,
and JRC with his plans for expansion. That would seem toke her "Bete noire",
secondly, the E.S. was already antagonistic towards me. You know John wise,
Jay Stone (our accomplice), and I were officially notified that we were
permanently banned from Krotona? Something about our being "Black
Magicians". This was after the exposition and after they sabotaged by run
for office.

I guess it depends on who you are and what way you "cross her".

You want to ask Jerry Hejka-Ekins about her in a private message as what he
has to say is totally unprintable. Did I tell you to send him 15.00 and
he'll send you a nice new copy of "Elder Brother"?

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:08:46 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:08:46 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628060846.006ba474@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

At 06:56 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I can't help but think that they are terrified of something, but I am not
>sure what it is.  I don't think it's losing their power because surely in
>their saner moments they know how little power they really have.  It must be
>something far deeper.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Chuck:

Oh I agree. But what it is is beyond real speculation. I know this I am not
simply "persona non grata" but a real "bete noire" to them. Look at the
business vis a vis my membership. That was carefully planned (knowing my
temper) to get me to resign.....but they don't appear to comprehend that;
member or not, my tie with the theosophical movement is indissoluble.

John has a theory. He thinks that, as most of the E.S. aren't psychic at
all, a group of them who are not really controlled psychics have been
obsessed and are doing the will of some malevolent elemental? After all that
extensive OTO-Saturnine connection (i.e Wedgewood, Arundale, Leadbeater,
Deacon) could attract some really ugly entities. Or may be it's those guys
"spooks" hanging around causing trouble. It's not impossible. I am pretty
sure about this, as it exists now, the E.S. is an organization of the
left-hand path (i.e non-altruistic).

alex

From euser@euronet.nl Fri Jun 28 06:04:32 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:04:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606280604.IAA08659@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: x = theosophy

Alan.>In my view, theosophy *requires* that we think for ourselves.  We must
also therefore take into account the possibility that when questioning
the thoughts of others ("founders," "core theosophy writers," etc.) we
need to even more rigorously question our own.


Alan: excellent idea. I hope that everyone takes this advice to their heart.

Martin

From euser@euronet.nl Fri Jun 28 06:04:35 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:04:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606280604.IAA08665@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: process = theosophy


Alan>This is observable phenomena, and the periodic manifestation is part of
a process, is it not?
When the T.S. was founded, there was not a single
automobile in the world.  Yes, there is periodicity, but it *is itself*
subject to process and change.

I agree with that.

Alan> It is possible that the underlying
"laws" which we might care to call "ancient wisdom" or even
"demonstrable fact* may be immutable, but if so, their effects and
consequences within time are *not.*

A truely philosophical remark. Effects and consequences are context and time
dependent as I see it.

I would like to point out that at least some of the seven jewels
can be easily applied to the physical realm:

karma: equilibrium seeking principle (there's even a mathematical theory,
called perturbation theory that operates on the principle of equilibrium
seeking and is sometimes applied in physics)

'hierarchies': embedded and repeated structures - some spectra of elements
                show this clearly; electronic shells around nucleus

unique characteristic: unique frequency (pattern); unique gene pattern

dualism: electromagnetic phenomena

connectedness: non-local effects in quantum physics


The same can be done on the level of the mind (dual manas, character of
individual, thought-pattern, composite structure of human being,
embeddedness in Oversoul)

I submit that these jewels are really worthwile to ponder over.
They just need a little translation to be understandable.

Alan>Another working hyposthesis for you:
Devachan changes (process) according to the nature and quality of its
inhabitants.

Looks very plausible to me. In fact it is a theosophical teaching :)

Martin

From euser@euronet.nl Fri Jun 28 06:04:39 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:04:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606280604.IAA08679@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy



>
>Chris: in addition I'm curious as to what *arguments* 'process' theosophists
>have to dismiss core-theosophy (HPB & Mahatma Letters) as irrelevant.

Martin: I dismiss the "Mahatma Letters" as irrelevant because , having
studied them over a course of some 30 years I have found them to be so
mutually contradictory


Alexis: can you give some examples of that? I would like to check that.

A> and lacking in real content that it is not simply
that I consider them to be irrelevant but that I don't consider them to be
valid. In other words I believe them to be not frauds, but not real either.
I believe the HPB produced them and apported them whenever she needed
particularly unarguable support in a particular goal of hers. If she could
apport tea cups (and I believe she could) then this would be a really simple
feat. Basically I also have to say that I don't find the "Mahatma Letters"
particularly intellectually or ethically impressive. While I am very
impressed by "Isis" and some of HPB's other writings, the Secret doctrine is
just far too flawed a document to become part of any "core belief" of mine.
But as you know I am planning a book on that particular subject.

I guess you particularly mean Secret Doctrine vol.2 ?
Where are the flaws in SD 1?


M>The point is, the 'process' theosophists are sorely lacking in arguments
>*or* just not presenting them (I'll except Jerry Schueler with whom
>I've had interesting discussions on chaos, karma, etc. - but even
>chaos can fit into the framework of theosophical teachings about conflict
>of wills and Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma aspects of the cosmos)

A>I would have supposed by now that you would know that I, at least, consider
discussions on "Karma", "Skandhas", "Devachan", Nirmanakaya Buddhas" and
"Shiva?Vishnu?Brahma" to be aspects of the Buddhist and Hindu religions and
as such perhaps interesting in a 'Second Object" comparative religion sense,
but I don't believe them to be intrinsic to small "t" theosophy of what I
call "Process  theosophy".

        There are other small "t" theosophists who may think differently,
I've heard relatively little from them (except Jerry Schueler).
Remember, this posting is directed to the entire list.

A>If you define our discussion in terms of an a
priori acceptance of those religious aspects, then how can we have a
discussion when I, at least (I can't speak for others) reject the religious
approach to theosophy absolutely?


Alexis: Buddhism is not a religion, in the strict sense of the word.
        Nor is Hindu philosophy. There are interesting philosophical
        notions involved which you dismiss here.

M>To make my point a little bit clearer I will point out that no-one
>has made a real case against the doctrine of cycles, of which reincarnation
>is one example only. Well, I submit that it is next to impossible
>to do so, because cycles abund in nature. Your own heart-beat and
>respiratory process are clear examples of that.

A>What I see you as doing here is reversing the old metaphysical axiom of
Hermes Trismegistus and making it "As below, so above". As I see it your
heartbeat and respiratory cycle and male-female and day-night and life-death
are all physical plane phenomena and have absolutely no correlation within
the greater and totally non-physical realities. Sure cycles and duality
abound in nature, but nature is physical and the greater reality is NOT!


  The doctrine of cycles applies equally well to physical phenomena, so I
haven't reversed anything. Just applied the law of cycles to the physical realm,
that's all and there's *nothing* wrong with that!
BTW, I don't separate the realms of nature in an *absolute* sense, they
all are part and parcel of a greater whole.

A>That kind of thinking, and imaging of non-physicality by projecting physical
phenomena onto it, is entirely solipsistic and anthropocentric. As far as I
am concerned, in post-physical reality dualism doesn't exist.

   Your above remark doesn't apply in this example as I explained above.


M>Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
>for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
>when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
>periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
>Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
>this example. Plato's ~Phaedo~ is excellent stuff in this regard.

A>But when one views that all that exists is part and parcel of the Unified
Field of Energy-Intelligence it comes our differently.

        What do you mean? Please elaborate.


>
>Another intricate topic is that of structure-function-order in the universe.
>There are people on this list, myself included, who have some experiences
>of seeing angels (not merely devas),elementals etc.

A>Well as a Shaman, I've certainly had my share of experiences of that kind.
BUT I prefer to call them energy or light beings, and to differentiate them
by their energy levels rather than some imaginary religious hierarchy.

        This so-called 'imaginary' religious hierarchy has many names
 and forms and these beings can equally well be called light beings.
 That's just another label. As to the word 'hierarchy': it has many bad
 connotations, so if you prefer energy levels, I would go along with that
 as well.


A>As a
Shaman, I find the "(not merely devas)" aside to be a little egotistical.
What do you mean by it? I find a physical person trying to socially grade
non-physical centers-of-consciousness just a hair pretentious.

        That has nothing to do with it. I was thinking about the so-called
        lower devas (Point Loma line has other concept than TSA about devas)
        in contrast to Guardian Angel. But you can forget about that remark,
        it leads us nowhere.

M>Now, what does this mean? When we see beings from certain planes/spheres
>of life what can we imply? That there is more to nature than what is visible
>to our ordinary senses. But what is it all about? Many acknowledge the
>existence of other planes/spheres of life. So, there is some *structure*
>or *order* there, how else could it function? Nobody on this list has
>drawn publicly (on this list) any conclusions about that, as far as I know.

Martin:  It seems
to me though that it is important not to impose physical level only notions
of things like "order and structure" on a reality to which physicality is
entirely irrelevant.


        Let me ask you a question: do you include psyche in your physical
level notion?

M>This is to my *amazement*. How on earth (heaven, hell) can there be no
>structure in this universe. And if my point is acknowledged, why not
>discuss some of the implications of this??

Martin: Does the "structure" and reality of the non-physical universe have
to conform to the physical perceptions of a human being? No it doesn't.


        It doesn't have to conform to the *physical* perceptions of man.

A>Human Beings are of a really low order of reality, their views of the
greater reality are entirely limited by their lesser reality.

        Never heard of the faculty of buddhi?
My point is that unlike you seem to think, there *are* human beings
who have developed such an understanding of life that their perception
of the greater reality is enormous in comparison to what we perceive.
I submit to disregard the wisdom of the ages is sheer foolishness.

A>My primary complaint about "Core Theosophy" is that it tries to impose human
conceptions of order and structure on a reality to which those things may
very well be entirely irrelevant.

        Could be, we have to be careful indeed. Yet it is not too difficult
to perceive structure and order in one's own mind (psyche, thinking faculty,
character). The psyche has *definitely* a sphere of its own, beyond mere
physicality.

>
M>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>Arguments and alternatives, please !

A>Martin the trouble is that I somehow feel, especially after reading that
last paragraph that you don't take either us (seriously)

        I take each person seriously in principle


A> or our arguments seriously.

        But there are hardly any arguments or strong evidence for your
position(s) presented, that's my point!!

A> In
view of our new determination to try to keep things amicable on the list,
I'd like to ask you to retract that "Too smart to believe in any of this
core theosophy nonsense" remark. It's irrelevant to our discussion and
hardly either an "argument and alternative".

        First of all: my remark is between quotes and is not intended
as an insult, but rather as a graphic description of how many on this list
perceive the attitude of especially you (some are too scared to come out
of their lurking position or decided to unsubscribe) and maybe a couple
of others. Now, if my remark hurt your feelings, I've no problem in
retracting it. The problem is, however, that the fear of getting flamed
or the fear of unproductive quarrels will not disappear when I retract
my remark (which I see not without any substance to it however).
Your anger has caused so much damage that it will be a long time before
many people will feel safe on this list. I mean feel safe to engage
in dialogue. Therefore I ask you to be tactful to others if you disagree
with them.


A>It makes you sound defensive and as a psychologist you should know that is
totally counter-productive.

        Actually I'm a bit in the offense, Alexis. I would really
like to see some discussions about what's exactly wrong with the seven
jewels. So far I've not seen one single valid argument.


M>Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
>into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
>some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
>teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
>try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
>to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
>In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
>who try to think for themselves.

Martin: You may thank the administrations at Adyar, and of the TSA, and the
uLT and the Pasadena Society for that "division" it's an official
theosophical thing. It was meant to cast people who REALLY think for
themselves out into "outer darkness" and I suppose out of "Theosophy" as
well.


       I read your account of what happened regarding Joy Mills.
It's a shame.


A> No offense meant but I do not see parroting someone like G de P's
opinions (or Leadbeaters, or even Blavatsky's) as thinking for one's self. I
think it very important to keep in mind that all those books represent
merely the opinions of their writers, it's when people treat those opinions
as "received truth" or "Gospel" that I begin to think of those people as
religious.


        This is a delicate point. I have a total other view than you
on this. One can present teachings which one has found to be valuable
and reliable and which one has verified partly for oneself to others,
not in the sense of a religion, but in the sense of material that can
be useful for other seekers to investigate and validate. The fact
that humans can develop the faculty of discrimination (a must for spiritual
seekers)is crucial here. Some 'finger pointing to the path' is useful
in my opinion. Needless for all to reinvent the wheel, we can profit
from experiences of others although we have to do the 'Great Work' ourselves.
BTW, do you believe in the idea of initiations or is it all nonsense to you?


A> I think this is one of those very frequent occasions when we have
to say "If the shoe fits...wear it".


        Yes, *if* the shoe fits. And this proverb applies to all
in some sense.


Martin



From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:11:25 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:11:25 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628061125.006c2068@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Internet and Theosophy/TS

At 07:14 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>You're right.  John Algeo told me as much when I invited him to post on
>alt.theosophy.
>
>Chuck
>
>Why am I not surprised? She told me that is exactly what he'd do.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 06:32:50 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:32:50 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628063250.006ced78@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists

At 07:23 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Martin, you seem angry at "a lot of other `process' theosophists
>who have not presented *arguments* against the Theosophical
>teachings."  Alexis and Jerry S. are exempt, you say.  But since process
>Theosophist is AFAIK Alexis's term, and no one else has
>explicitly claimed it, I don't understand who these miscreants
>are who ought to have presented arguments against the
>Theosophical teachings.  They are the people who are "too smart
>to believe any of this core theosophy nonsense," but who are
>they?  You yourself say that you regard such a division as very
>simplistic and "this labeling as a kind of *insult*" yet you
>seem to be lashing out at some unnamed people you are dividing
>off and labeling.  I just don't get it.
>
>On the chance that for some reason I may be one of the people
>targeted by your complaint, let me state that I have absolutely
>no inclination to present arguments against the Theosophical teachings
>as such.  I have presented arguments about the literalistic, fundamentalistic
>way some Theosophists approach them.  And the stultifying effect this has had
>on the movement as a whole.
>
>I agree with Alexis about `process theosophy' to the extent that theosophy
>is primarily a *way of knowing* and not an *object of
>knowledge*.  What is there to be mad at in that?  Those who obsess over
>theosophy as a body of doctrines are IMO mistaking the pointing finger for the
>moon.  I am tremendously appreciative to HPB, G de P et al for
>formulating that body of doctrines, and feel that I have gained
>a lot from their study.  But I also feel that I wasted a chunk
>of my life mistaking the finger for the moon, imagining that I
>knew something when all I did was parrot others.  Ultimately the whole point
>is to become a theosopher, one who theosophizes-- rather than a
>Theosophist, one who believes what someone else says about
>theosophy.
>
>Don't you agree?
>
Paul. amigo mio; I don't know if Martin will agree or not, but I agree with
everything you said. As to who the miscreants are: well there are Jerry S.,
myself, JRC, Chuck, and others not represented on theos-list. Actually there
are a lot of process theosophists. I really think the biggest problem Martin
has, and the reason he is "lashing out" in that fashion is that he has a big
time fear that we just might be right. It seems to me, based upon Martin's
postings, that his complaint that we never bolster our "complaints" with
serious arguments is a "smoke screen" and nothing else. JRC, who is a
College Professor and PHD, has posted some rather well developed arguments
on the subject, and certainly so has Jerry S., who is also a PHD. I too have
posted long and academic arguments based on scholarship...but Martin just
keeps saying we never do so. Of course we can't be expected to quote from G
de P or Robert Crosbie or even HPB as that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about INDIVIDUAL comprehension and understanding and
INDIVIDUAL thinking, that precludes quotations and citations. I don't think
most of us "Process theosophists" intend to present arguments against the
teachings themselves (at least for the most part) it's that we are
disparaging the perception and utilization of the teachings by people like
John Algeo and Radha Burnier..

alexis dolgorukii

From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 06:30:15 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 02:30:15 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628023014_226839476@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

Alex,
Better send any private e-mails to me at this address.  I am having the
devil's own time getting through to ripco.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 06:34:09 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 02:34:09 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628023407_226840829@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

Alex,
Now remember, my path isn't altruistic by nature either.  But you may be onto
something about the ES.  Considering its devotional practices, it may have
glommed onto a rather malevolent critter or series of critters the type of
people being in, they are simply too dumb to know what they have gotten
hooked up with.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 06:36:03 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 02:36:03 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628023601_226841963@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Bee

Alan,
Let us hope she will be happier among the sheep.  It must have been very
frustrating for her to try to deal with a style of discourse so alien to what
she is used to and was expecting.

Chuck
From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 07:18:23 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:18:23 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628071823.006d32ec@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Science + Religion = Theosophy

At 12:57 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Of course it's very wise.  I wrote it. :-)
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>OY

From poulsen@dk-online.dk Fri Jun 28 14:43:09 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:43:09 -200
From: Kim Poulsen 
Message-Id: <01BB64EF.9CFCDFC0@x.dko.global-one.dk>
Subject: Re: request to ALL
Encoding: 17 TEXT

Chuck:
>Haven't you figured out by now that theosophists can be very fiendish
>people?

Chuck, no need to exercise in this direction
   In this case I Iike to think that the theosophist remain in its
immutable state on its own plane:  - and that the little fiends are having
their own way for the time being.
   But yes - a long line of, too often, unlikable personages united by the
concept of universal brotherhood. I can live with irony, and frankly - to
succumb to disillusion and bitterness is a grim ending. Better to wake up
and try to change the state of things for the better - even if gives one a
certain vulnerability.

In friendship,

Kim

From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Jun 28 09:20:11 1996
Date:          Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:17:11 -0300
From: 
Subject:       Unveiled Isis
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <2E35526A82@serv.peb.ufrj.br>

HPB at book iii (start page 116, final page 145) page 141 says: 

No. It is not true that catholic doctrine preaches that Jesus and Christ are
the same thing. Christ is called the "anointed", that everyone can turn himself
an become "partakers of the divine nature", "so that we might become God".
Below I reproduce some passages from Catholic Catechism. I think that
HPB  refers to same doctrine when she talk about gnostic doctrine
about Christ.

http://webzone1.co.uk/www/jcrawley/ccc_cont.htm
430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name
Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.[18] Since God alone
can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their
sins".[19] in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.

436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means
"anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine
mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave
were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for
prophets.[29] This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to
inaugurate his kingdom definitively.[30] It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit
of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.[31] Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of
Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king.

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":[78] "For this is why the
Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into
communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."[79] "For
the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[80] "The only-begotten Son of God,
wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make
men gods."[81]

521 Christ enables us to live in him all that he himself lived, and he lives it in us. "By his Incarnation,
he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man."[193] We are called only to
become one with him, for he enables us as the members of his Body to share in what he lived for us
in his flesh as our model:
We must continue to accomplish in ourselves the stages of Jesus' life and his mysteries and often to
beg him to perfect and realize them in us and in his whole Church. . . For it is the plan of the Son of
God to make us and the whole Church partake in his mysteries and to extend them to and continue
them in us and in his whole Church. This is his plan for fulfilling his mysteries in us.[194]

Abrantes
From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 18:34:51 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:34:51 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628183451.006be0f4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: --

At 01:36 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello!
>
>=========================
>* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
>* From : Kay Ziatz
>=========================
>
>To: theos-l@vnet.net
>Subject: Postings on CWL Controversy
>
>For: alexis dolgorukii 
>
>a> so-called "9th Initiation" he says "Even I have never encountered such a
>a> being"...what does that say about his pretensions?
> Maybe... But  there are some letters by K.H.  to CWL (if they
>aren't humbug),  so CWL might know K.H.  personally (in  those
>letters K.H.  writes that karma of priest "caste" is very hard
>and warns CWL that he could fail.) Masters like M. & K.H. have
>6th (or 7th) initiation, as i've read somewhere.

Konstantine: What I was talking about is concentrated in the phrase "Even
I", who, or what did this man imagine himself to be? As I investigate CWL I
am coming to believe that he was not a CONSCIOUS fraud, but was insensibly
imagining things that had no real validity except to him. This probably had
to do with his involvement in the German OTO and in some of their
ritualistic activities. As to "M" and "K.H.". It is my blelief that Yelena
Blavatskaya had, among her adept associates two Indian Potentates who were
known as "M" (He was Chandragupta das Maurya, Maharajah of Benares and
Varanassi) and "K.H." (he was Ranbir Singh, Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir),
they were both Adepts as was Yelena herself and many of her other associates
such as Tuitit Bey, Serapis Bey, and Hilarion Smerdis (those are not their
real names of course). But she was associated with other adepts as well,
Garibaldi, Mazzini, and the Count di Cavour were the leaders of the italian
Revolutionary Movement and she was very closely connected with them, and
they too were adeptii.

>  It should be noted,  too, that those numbers are too "oldfa-
>shioned" -  only 3-rd initiation in our classification is  re-
>ally 1-st.  1st & 2nd are rather disciple's level, as ABB wri-
>tes.  It's because in prevoius epoques body control was impor-
>tant, and hatha-yoga was main yoga,  so total physical control
>was an object of 1-st initiation. So you shouldn't be frighte-
>ned by huge numbers like 9 - it's only 7 ;)

As to "initiations" all they are are adjustments in the oscillation rate of
the sine curves in the particle carrier waves that form the force fields
that individuate an apparently physical body. I don't believe in them as the
kind of thing Leadbeater and associates taught.

>  "Right" &  "Left" paths split after 2-nd,  so by this reason
>3-rd should be regarded as really first, too.
>
>a> also have a problem believing in ("ex-communists").
> If we accept reincarnation, all of us are ex-communists, or
>ex-inquisitores, ex-cannibales,  etc.  If a man can change his
>opinion in a new life, why can't he in the same?

Well once again I have to say that based upon my own experience, I do not
believe in Reincarnation" as usually presented. I believe in it in a way,
but not as any kind of PERSONAL continuation. Based on what I'm seeing going
on in Russia today, I am beginning to wonder what we had there communists or
Opportunists? I think you must be aware of why I am personally so prejudiced
against Bolsheviks, they murdered almost my entire family in 1919. And I
have spent almost my whole life in anonymity for fear they'd kill me.
>
>bf> For example, I believe Alexis has said something to the effect
>bf> that he believes HPB wrote most if not all of the Mahatma Let-
>bf> ters.  I have no idea what Alexis has based this conclusion on

But Alexis does, One: I am a psychic too, and I know how she did it, and
two: If you compare the letters with her usual writing they are very much
the same. It's a matter of style and phrasing. Now I don't for a moment
think that the letters weren't channeled (or at least some of them) But
mostly it was just Yelena doing her work and the work of her order.

> But much worse - HBP didn't stopped then.
>After that she wrote "letters on occult meditation" to A.Bailey,

She DID???? I thought "Letters on Occult Meditation" were written by Djwal
Kul (The Tibetan)! And Nicholas Roerich's letters purported to be from "M"
but cake through his wife.
>lot of letters to E. Roerich and Letters of alive dead to E. Bar-
>ker.  To be honest, I never heard of E. Barker.

She was a very productive writer, indeed ;)

Well she was a very productive person.
>
>a> Yelena Blavatskaya was, as I see her, an enthusiastic iconoclast, and I
>a> admire her immensely for being so.
>  Krishnamurti was even more. So there's a progress ;)

And I am worse than either of them,,so there's more progress.
>
>b> against the negatives. To me, it is obvious that both CWL and AB has done
>b> A LOT of good. It is also quite obvious that they made serious mistakes.
> They were like N. Hruschov. Do you understand?

Oh yes, I understand what you mean. I don't entirely disagree either. I
think that they'd have done a great deal more good were they genuine and not
so flawed.
>
>W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet
>
>P.S. Because you're russian, i inform you about web site with
>lot of theosophical literature in russian:
> http://www.topaz.kiev.ua/users/kirill
>  ftp://www.topaz.kiev.ua/doc/jack_lib
>I think it's only place of that kind (and may close down soon!!!)

Konstantin: I thank you, but while I speak 7 languages, Russian is
unfortunately NOT one of them. Who could foresee the fall of the Soviet
union in 1990? I thought never to see it in this body. I asked my
Grandfather (who spoke 14 languages, as he served in the imperial Diplomatic
Corps and The Imperial Army) to teach me Russian and he said "What for"
you'll never get to use it! This is something I feel very badly about.
Actually despite the Russian name I am only one quarter Russian, one quarter
Magyar, and the rest is French, English, Scottish, and Irish.
>
>Address for personal replies:
>Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru
>
alexis dolgorukii
>

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 19:48:41 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:48:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628194841.006d88b4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 02:07 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>

>
>Alexis: can you give some examples of that? I would like to check that.

Martin: I'd really like to suggest that your read the dam things and make up
your own mind. Also read "Letters of Mme..Blavatsky to A.P.Sinnett" and see
the resemblances. In addition I'd like to comment that the flavor of some of
those "Mahatma Letters" don't really match theosophical illusions about the
character of Adepts either. I'm reporting my personal reaction to many years
of study and reading. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go and
prepare a "term paper" on the subject for you.
>
>A> and lacking in real content that it is not simply
>that I consider them to be irrelevant but that I don't consider them to be
>valid. In other words I believe them to be not frauds, but not real either.
>I believe the HPB produced them and apported them whenever she needed
>particularly unarguable support in a particular goal of hers. If she could
>apport tea cups (and I believe she could) then this would be a really simple
>feat. Basically I also have to say that I don't find the "Mahatma Letters"
>particularly intellectually or ethically impressive. While I am very
>impressed by "Isis" and some of HPB's other writings, the Secret doctrine is
>just far too flawed a document to become part of any "core belief" of mine.
>But as you know I am planning a book on that particular subject.
>
>I guess you particularly mean Secret Doctrine vol.2 ?
>Where are the flaws in SD 1?

Well, that would be telling wouldn't it? My book is in process (very early
in process) and I am trying to find someone who has a couple of Doctorates
in Hard Sciences to write the scientific critique but the problem is finding
someone who accepts the possibility of paranormal facilities (and who is
willing to put his or her career on the line by being connected with
anything at all concerning theosophy. But I am getting there. Like the
Blavatsky Foundation, you'll just have to wait. But regarding the S.D. I'll
just repeat one quote from HPB. "If you can understand the Proem, you don't
need the book, and if you cannot understand the Proem, the book is useless".
By understand, I think she means "get it". But I will tell you this, I
regard both Volumes I & II to be hopelessly flawed, and Volume III to be
largely a forgery. Or at least I hope it's a forgery because she says things
there that make one wonder about her sanity. One instance: In Volume II HPB
makes the statement that "all Roman Catholic Priests" are Black Magicians. I
think that's an adequate reason to hope it's a forgery. The thing I believe
is that whether you are dealing with her Cosmology or her Anthropology it's
all "fairy Tales".
>
>
>M>The point is, the 'process' theosophists are sorely lacking in arguments
>>*or* just not presenting them (I'll except Jerry Schueler with whom
>>I've had interesting discussions on chaos, karma, etc. - but even
>>chaos can fit into the framework of theosophical teachings about conflict
>>of wills and Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma aspects of the cosmos)
>
>A>I would have supposed by now that you would know that I, at least, consider
>discussions on "Karma", "Skandhas", "Devachan", Nirmanakaya Buddhas" and
>"Shiva?Vishnu?Brahma" to be aspects of the Buddhist and Hindu religions and
>as such perhaps interesting in a 'Second Object" comparative religion sense,
>but I don't believe them to be intrinsic to small "t" theosophy of what I
>call "Process  theosophy".
>
>        There are other small "t" theosophists who may think differently,
>I've heard relatively little from them (except Jerry Schueler).
>Remember, this posting is directed to the entire list.

I think I've already expressed the idea that each and every "Process
Theosophist" has a personal and individual view on almost every subject, we
are,none of us, obliged to agree with each other or anyone else. We run a
gamut from Jerry S. who has a strong belief in certain Buddhist-Vedic
speculative cosmology to me who doesn't believe in any of it.That's what
makes it "theosophical" and it's entirely contradictory to any kind of "core
doctrine" policy. So actually Martin you'll have to do your questioning to
each "small "t" theosophist individually. Have fun!
>
>A>If you define our discussion in terms of an a
>priori acceptance of those religious aspects, then how can we have a
>discussion when I, at least (I can't speak for others) reject the religious
>approach to theosophy absolutely?
>
>
>Alexis: Buddhism is not a religion, in the strict sense of the word.
>        Nor is Hindu philosophy. There are interesting philosophical
>        notions involved which you dismiss here.

Martin: Buddhism is a religion in any sense of the term, it may not have a
Pope or a Vatican but it has their equivalents, but none the less it IS a
religion. So too is Brahmanism, which has little if anything to do with
Vedic Philosophy. "Core Theosophy" as it exists today is a compendium of
both those religious beliefs. I reject them. Now as to "interesting
philosophical notions". They may be interesting to you, they do not interest
me and so I "dismiss" them.
>

>A>What I see you as doing here is reversing the old metaphysical axiom of
>Hermes Trismegistus and making it "As below, so above". As I see it your
>heartbeat and respiratory cycle and male-female and day-night and life-death
>are all physical plane phenomena and have absolutely no correlation within
>the greater and totally non-physical realities. Sure cycles and duality
>abound in nature, but nature is physical and the greater reality is NOT!
>
>
>  The doctrine of cycles applies equally well to physical phenomena, so I
>haven't reversed anything. Just applied the law of cycles to the physical
realm,
>that's all and there's *nothing* wrong with that!
>BTW, I don't separate the realms of nature in an *absolute* sense, they
>all are part and parcel of a greater whole.

I repeat what I said above: Cycles apply clearly in the physical levels of
the realities, they do NOT apply in the non-physical realms. You ignored
what I said above exactly as if I hadn't said it.
>
>A>That kind of thinking, and imaging of non-physicality by projecting physical
>phenomena onto it, is entirely solipsistic and anthropocentric. As far as I
>am concerned, in post-physical reality dualism doesn't exist.
>
>   Your above remark doesn't apply in this example as I explained above.

But you didn't explain anything, you simply re-stated what is to me a
totally invalid conception.
>
>
>M>Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
>>for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
>>when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
>>periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
>>Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
>>this example. Plato's ~Phaedo~ is excellent stuff in this regard.
>
>A>But when one views that all that exists is part and parcel of the Unified
>Field of Energy-Intelligence it comes our differently.
>
>        What do you mean? Please elaborate.

My book will be out in January (I hope) buy one and read it, I elaborate the
hell out of these positions in it.
>
>
>>
>>Another intricate topic is that of structure-function-order in the universe.
>>There are people on this list, myself included, who have some experiences
>>of seeing angels (not merely devas),elementals etc.
>
>A>Well as a Shaman, I've certainly had my share of experiences of that kind.
>BUT I prefer to call them energy or light beings, and to differentiate them
>by their energy levels rather than some imaginary religious hierarchy.
>
>        This so-called 'imaginary' religious hierarchy has many names
> and forms and these beings can equally well be called light beings.
> That's just another label. As to the word 'hierarchy': it has many bad
> connotations, so if you prefer energy levels, I would go along with that
> as well.
>
>
>A>As a
>Shaman, I find the "(not merely devas)" aside to be a little egotistical.
>What do you mean by it? I find a physical person trying to socially grade
>non-physical centers-of-consciousness just a hair pretentious.
>
>        That has nothing to do with it. I was thinking about the so-called
>        lower devas (Point Loma line has other concept than TSA about devas)
>        in contrast to Guardian Angel. But you can forget about that remark,
>        it leads us nowhere.

It may lead us nowhere, but it is still, in my opinion "pretentious", In any
case, I am no more impressed by the "Point Loma Line" than I am by the TSA
"Line".
>
>M>Now, what does this mean? When we see beings from certain planes/spheres
>>of life what can we imply? That there is more to nature than what is visible
>>to our ordinary senses. But what is it all about? Many acknowledge the
>>existence of other planes/spheres of life. So, there is some *structure*
>>or *order* there, how else could it function? Nobody on this list has
>>drawn publicly (on this list) any conclusions about that, as far as I know.
>
>Martin:  It seems
>to me though that it is important not to impose physical level only notions
>of things like "order and structure" on a reality to which physicality is
>entirely irrelevant.
>
>
>        Let me ask you a question: do you include psyche in your physical
>level notion?

What definition are you using for "psyche"? In Greek it means "soul" but
what do YOU mean?
>
>M>This is to my *amazement*. How on earth (heaven, hell) can there be no
>>structure in this universe. And if my point is acknowledged, why not
>>discuss some of the implications of this??
>
>Martin: Does the "structure" and reality of the non-physical universe have
>to conform to the physical perceptions of a human being? No it doesn't.
>
>
>        It doesn't have to conform to the *physical* perceptions of man.
>
>A>Human Beings are of a really low order of reality, their views of the
>greater reality are entirely limited by their lesser reality.
>
>        Never heard of the faculty of buddhi?
>My point is that unlike you seem to think, there *are* human beings
>who have developed such an understanding of life that their perception
>of the greater reality is enormous in comparison to what we perceive.
>I submit to disregard the wisdom of the ages is sheer foolishness.

Oh Martin, when are you ever going to realize, and act on it, that other
people might just possibly know anything at all. Yes, I've heard of the
"faculty of Buddhi".....the thing that is beginning to worry me is that I am
beginning to be afraid that you think you've got it! One thing I am sure of
and that is that the people who created "Core Theosophy" don't really show
too much evidence of it. If, that is, it exists in other than fertile
imaginations.
>
>A>My primary complaint about "Core Theosophy" is that it tries to impose human
>conceptions of order and structure on a reality to which those things may
>very well be entirely irrelevant.
>
>        Could be, we have to be careful indeed. Yet it is not too difficult
>to perceive structure and order in one's own mind (psyche, thinking faculty,
>character). The psyche has *definitely* a sphere of its own, beyond mere
>physicality.

It's easily possible to perceive order and structure in one's own life and
thoughts but NOT in one's "mind". What "psyche" has, or may have, depends
entirely on one's definition of it.
>
>>
>M>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>>Arguments and alternatives, please !
>
>A>Martin the trouble is that I somehow feel, especially after reading that
>last paragraph that you don't take either us (seriously)
>
>        I take each person seriously in principle

What does that mean?
>
>
>A> or our arguments seriously.
>
>        But there are hardly any arguments or strong evidence for your
>position(s) presented, that's my point!!

That statement is entirely untrue, that is it's a falsehood. Perhaps it
wouldn't have been so false if you had said "In my opinion". There have been
arguments presented but they contradict the "Point Loma Line" ergo your
"line" and so are no arguments at all. So far Martin all you have presented
in return is Orthodox Core Theosophy, adamantly and in very strong terms.
But that doesn't actually negate any arguments against those "lines" it just
rejects them. You know Martin, I've spent the last 46 years out "on the
streets" and "on the barricades" arguing with Fundamentalist Christians
about things like racism and bigotry (perhaps it has effected my style, in
that I am unused to parlor arguing) but, in a much nicer and more polite
way, you are ignoring what I have to say just as completely as they do/did.
>
>A> In
>view of our new determination to try to keep things amicable on the list,
>I'd like to ask you to retract that "Too smart to believe in any of this
>core theosophy nonsense" remark. It's irrelevant to our discussion and
>hardly either an "argument and alternative".
>
>        First of all: my remark is between quotes and is not intended
>as an insult, but rather as a graphic description of how many on this list
>perceive the attitude of especially you (some are too scared to come out
>of their lurking position or decided to unsubscribe) and maybe a couple
>of others. Now, if my remark hurt your feelings, I've no problem in
>retracting it. The problem is, however, that the fear of getting flamed
>or the fear of unproductive quarrels will not disappear when I retract
>my remark (which I see not without any substance to it however).
>Your anger has caused so much damage that it will be a long time before
>many people will feel safe on this list. I mean feel safe to engage
>in dialogue. Therefore I ask you to be tactful to others if you disagree
>with them.

Martin: In English/American usage putting a remark like that between
quotation marks intensifies its intent to insult. I will be just as
"tactful" as you are, and you, my friend, are no more tactful than I. I do
think you are less honest however. Because when I "flame" someone, I do not
pretend it's not a flame. But be that as it may. If I irritate you, what
would Blavatsky have done? I'm 100% more tactful than she was.
>
>
>A>It makes you sound defensive and as a psychologist you should know that is
>totally counter-productive.
>
>        Actually I'm a bit in the offense, Alexis. I would really
>like to see some discussions about what's exactly wrong with the seven
>jewels. So far I've not seen one single valid argument.

Martin, with all due respect I'd like to say that I have seen several, but I
do believe that someone could send you 700 pages of absolute refutation and
you'd still whine that "I've not seen a single valid argument". If you won't
accept any arguments as valid, and it appears to me you won't, how can you
possibly see "one single valid argument"? I don't think you really WANT
argument, I think you want acquiescence! You appear to view "Core Theosophy"
as a "revealed truth", I view it as a highly speculative hypothesis. I am
really beginning to wonder if there is any real foundation that exists for
discussion (as opposed to argument).
>
>
>M>Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
>>into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
>>some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
>>teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
>>try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
>>to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
>>In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
>>who try to think for themselves.
>
>Martin: You may thank the administrations at Adyar, and of the TSA, and the
>uLT and the Pasadena Society for that "division" it's an official
>theosophical thing. It was meant to cast people who REALLY think for
>themselves out into "outer darkness" and I suppose out of "Theosophy" as
>well.
>
>
>       I read your account of what happened regarding Joy Mills.
>It's a shame.
>
>
>A> No offense meant but I do not see parroting someone like G de P's
>opinions (or Leadbeaters, or even Blavatsky's) as thinking for one's self. I
>think it very important to keep in mind that all those books represent
>merely the opinions of their writers, it's when people treat those opinions
>as "received truth" or "Gospel" that I begin to think of those people as
>religious.
>
>
>        This is a delicate point. I have a total other view than you
>on this. One can present teachings which one has found to be valuable
>and reliable and which one has verified partly for oneself to others,
>not in the sense of a religion, but in the sense of material that can
>be useful for other seekers to investigate and validate. The fact
>that humans can develop the faculty of discrimination (a must for spiritual
>seekers)is crucial here. Some 'finger pointing to the path' is useful
>in my opinion. Needless for all to reinvent the wheel, we can profit
>from experiences of others although we have to do the 'Great Work' ourselves.
>BTW, do you believe in the idea of initiations or is it all nonsense to you?

AS it is presented in "Core Theosophy", especially in Leadbeater's views of
the subject, I believe it ("Initiations") to be  entirely nonsense. My view
on the reality of the subject (of course personal view) is that as each
individual is a "force-field" of energy, and "initiation" is simply a
"rheostat adjustment", in that the oscillation rate of the sine curves of
the particle carrier wave that sustains the energy particles which
differentiate the individual nexus or force-field are raised as appropriate
to that force-fields development. Not nearly so much room for "ego-tripping"
in that perception is there? Now compare it with the "Good Bishop's" version
(or in fact any "Core Doctrinal" version)..
>
>
>A> I think this is one of those very frequent occasions when we have
>to say "If the shoe fits...wear it".
>
>
>        Yes, *if* the shoe fits. And this proverb applies to all
>in some sense.
>
>
>Martin
>
alexis dolgorukii>
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 19:50:58 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:50:58 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628195058.006dffa0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

At 02:31 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Better send any private e-mails to me at this address.  I am having the
>devil's own time getting through to ripco.
>
>Chuck
>
>Roger-wilco!

Don't you think I'm earning lot's of "Good Karma Chits" for being so patient
with Martin?

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 19:52:53 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:52:53 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628195253.006e56fc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

At 02:37 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Now remember, my path isn't altruistic by nature either.  But you may be onto
>something about the ES.  Considering its devotional practices, it may have
>glommed onto a rather malevolent critter or series of critters the type of
>people being in, they are simply too dumb to know what they have gotten
>hooked up with.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Right. That's exactly what John thinks.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Fri Jun 28 19:57:41 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:57:41 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960628195741.006dfbb0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Bee

At 02:38 AM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alan,
>Let us hope she will be happier among the sheep.  It must have been very
>frustrating for her to try to deal with a style of discourse so alien to what
>she is used to and was expecting.
>
>Chuck
>
>Chuck:

Two things I'd like to point out. One: She is obviously used to being "God
Almighty" among the Whanganui T.S.ers and so the "give and take: so typical
of American activities just outraged her. You will notice it outrages all
foreigners, Kim, Martin, Bjorn, even Alan, they just don't understand our
"frontier mentality"...Americans get 'down and dirty" and these folks prefer
"diplomacy". Two: How much you want to bet that Bee is an E.S. Member?

Of course you and I are pretty damn "alien"

alex

From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Jun 28 23:15:54 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:15:54 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960628191553_342875319@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: request to ALL

Kim,
That's a very nice sentiment.  I wish it could be true but unfortunately
theosophists have one little problem.  We tend to be human and thus have
human failings as well as virtues and often in greater quantities.

Chuck
From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 29 00:22:02 1996
Date: 28 Jun 96 20:22:02 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy
Message-Id: <960629002202_76400.1474_HHL66-3@CompuServe.COM>

> Buddhism is a religion in any sense of the term, it may not have a
>Pope or a Vatican but it has their equivalents, but none the less it IS a
>religion. So too is Brahmanism, which has little if anything to do with
>Vedic Philosophy. "Core Theosophy" as it exists today is a compendium of
>both those religious beliefs. I reject them.

	Viva the Second Objective.  We are each free to study
the world's religions and select those parts that we like, and
reject the rest.  This is what Theosophy is all about.  Take only
what fits into your worldview.  Take only what works for you and
leave the rest.  Its called being eclectic.  Works for me.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 29 00:22:09 1996
Date: 28 Jun 96 20:22:09 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy
Message-Id: <960629002208_76400.1474_HHL66-6@CompuServe.COM>

Alexis: > Yes, I've heard of the
>"faculty of Buddhi".....the thing that is beginning to worry me is that I am
>beginning to be afraid that you think you've got it! One thing I am sure of
>and that is that the people who created "Core Theosophy" don't really show
>too much evidence of it. If, that is, it exists in other than fertile
>imaginations.

	As far as I know, one of the primary characteristics
of the "faculty of Buddhi" is acceptance.  This implies tolerance
and open-ness to new ideas.  "Core Theosophy" is a mental
construct, made of manas, perhaps with some buddhi-manas
insight, but manas nonetheless.  It serves well as a step
along the Path, but all theosophists should recognize that it
is but a step, and needs to be transcended some day. This
is exactly the function of Jnana Yoga.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 29 00:22:05 1996
Date: 28 Jun 96 20:22:05 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy
Message-Id: <960629002204_76400.1474_HHL66-4@CompuServe.COM>

>. We run a
>gamut from Jerry S. who has a strong belief in certain Buddhist-Vedic
>speculative cosmology to me who doesn't believe in any of it.That's what
>makes it "theosophical" and it's entirely contradictory to any kind of "core
>doctrine" policy. So actually Martin you'll have to do your questioning to
>each "small "t" theosophist individually. Have fun!
	
	As Alexis says, Martin, you will doubtless get a different
answer from each of us.  But this is exactly as it should be.  We are
all on different levels of understanding.  We are all seekers of truth.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 29 00:22:06 1996
Date: 28 Jun 96 20:22:06 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy
Message-Id: <960629002205_76400.1474_HHL66-5@CompuServe.COM>

>But regarding the S.D. I'll
>just repeat one quote from HPB. "If you can understand the Proem, you don't
>need the book, and if you cannot understand the Proem, the book is useless".

	Thanks for the quote, Alexis.  I love it.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 29 00:22:01 1996
Date: 28 Jun 96 20:22:01 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: reincarnation
Message-Id: <960629002200_76400.1474_HHL66-2@CompuServe.COM>

Alexis:
>Well once again I have to say that based upon my own experience, I do not
>believe in Reincarnation" as usually presented. I believe in it in a way,
>but not as any kind of PERSONAL continuation.
	
	I hate to say this Alexis, but your view of reincarnation sounds
like Core Theosophy to me.  As you know, HPB describes eloquently
how reincarnation works in the annex to Isis Unveiled, where she says
that the impersonal Ego reincarnates, not the personal ego.
Elsewhere she says that only the "aroma" of this life will continue
on because only the "aroma" of each life is absorbed by the Ego.
If your view differs from HPB's, please amplify.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Jun 29 00:21:57 1996
Date: 28 Jun 96 20:21:57 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: The 7 Jewels
Message-Id: <960629002157_76400.1474_HHL66-1@CompuServe.COM>

>I submit that these jewels are really worthwile to ponder over.
>They just need a little translation to be understandable.

	Martin, the "jewels" have already been translated into
English pretty well.  It is up to us to read them, digest them,
and then apply them to our individual lives, or reject them.
Re-writing them may help you to see them better,  but won't
help others much, except maybe the newbies (your essay is
great for new comers).  The real goal of the "jewels" is to be
understood without words, with the heart rather than the head.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 16:43:37 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:43:37 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Some Judge Letters
In-Reply-To: <960627191010_341735020@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960627191010_341735020@emout07.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Eldon,
>Interesting stuff.  You know, of course, that the Coues mentioned is the
>infamous Dr. Coues of the "Day by day, I am getting better and better,"
>cliche.
>
>Chuck

Are you sure - his name on a book I have of his is Emile.

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 Jun 28 16:47:22 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:47:22 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists
In-Reply-To: <199606272319.TAA14391@leo.vsla.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606272319.TAA14391@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson"
 writes
>Ultimately the whole point
>is to become a theosopher, one who theosophizes-- rather than a
>Theosophist, one who believes what someone else says about
>theosophy.
>
>Don't you agree?

I dunno about Martin, but I do!

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 Jun 28 16:53:38 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:53:38 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Indian temperament
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
"m.k. ramadoss"  writes
>This has led to a very unique characteristic of thinking men and women of
>India. If you put ten of them in a room and ask them to come up with a
>solution for a problem or plan for a project, then will rarely come up
>with one. But they are going to come up with 100 different ones.

I have long had a fond corner for the temperament of the Indian people.
One time I saw some books advertised in another book which had been
donated to me, and had been published in Trichur.

I wrote to the Author/publishers asking for English prices of six other
books I was interested in.  There was no reply, but about 2 weeks later,
all six books arrived in a parcel smothered in low value Indian stamps;
no invoice, just the books.

I worked out the English equivalent of the cost of the books plus the
postage, and sent a check for the money, at the same time asking for a
further six books.

I have never heard from them since ....

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 Jun 28 16:55:15 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:55:15 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: process = theosophy
In-Reply-To: <199606280604.IAA08665@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606280604.IAA08665@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser
 writes
>Devachan changes (process) according to the nature and quality of its
>inhabitants.
>
>Looks very plausible to me. In fact it is a theosophical teaching :)
>
>Martin

We seem to have cracked 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 Fri Jun 28 17:02:43 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:02:43 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Life on Mars
In-Reply-To: <199606280514.AA14106@angel.elektra.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199606280514.AA14106@angel.elektra.ru>, Macnev Uri
 writes
>Hello!
>
>=========================
>* Forwarded by Macnev Uri
>* From : Kay Ziatz
>=========================
>
>To: theos-l@vnet.net
>Subject: Alternatives?
>
>>For: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
>
>    Hello!
>AMB> For example, CWL was completely wrong about life on Mars. His other
>AMB> clairvoyant experiences may have been more accurate, or may not, but how
> Unfortunately, i haven't read what he wrote about  Mars.

He wrote:


                     C.W.Leadbeater on Mars

Charles Webster Leadbeater (16 February 1854 - 29 February
1934), a former Church of England minister, was ordained deacon
in St.  Andrew's Church, Farnham, Surrey, England, 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 James Ingall 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 know work
for Liberal Catholics is "The Science of the Sacraments," a work
which is not at all scientific, and the sacraments referred to
seem to be more of the order of 'High Magic' than a true
Christian Memorial of Jesus the Nazarene rabbi.  The late Henry
T. Brandreth in his "Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church"
[SPCK 1948,1961] stated of the work that it "... abounds in
unhealthy mysticism and fantastic symbolism."

According to Gregory Tillet, Leadbeater's biographer in "The
Elder Brother" [Routledge, 1982] the 'high spot' of Leadbeater's
teaching to young men and boys, with whom he is reputed to have
had numerous sexual encounters, was reached during collective
masturbation, whereby at the moment of climax, all were exhorted
to raise their thoughts to the highest planes.

Leadbeater seems to have lived in a dream world of his own, and
his fantasies are perpetuated in some branches of the Liberal
Catholic Church, which itself grew out of the theosophical
movement in the early part of the 20th century.

Leadbeater lied about his age, causing many of his followers to
attribute to him a vitality associated with "Occult Adepts,"
when in fact he pretended to be seven years older than he
actually was.  Prior to Tillet's reproduction of his birth
certificate, sources give his birthdate as 17 February 1847.

[Adapted from my "Bishops Irregular" 1985, Bristol, England].

(A.M.Bain)

He was, at one time, expelled from the Adyar based Theosophical
Society in consequence of the homosexual allegations made
against him, but was later re-admitted to the fold.

In 1911, the first edition was published, in two volumes, of his
"The Inner Life" in which his "visions" of life on Mars appear,
along with a great many other lecture texts.  In response to
some interest shown by latter day theosophists around the world,
this particular lecture is reproduced here, together with the
book's
Foreword by the then President, Annie Besant, and his own
Author's note.  The text, without further comment, now follows:
*************************************************************

                      FOREWORD

OUR evening 'Talks' at the Theosophical Headquarters at Adyar
have become quite an institution, and a very considerable
amount of information, due to new research, often arising from
some question put by a student, is given in this friendly and
intimate circle.  Our good Vice-President, Sir, S.Subramania
Iyer, found so much help and illumination from these talks, that
he earnestly wished to share his pleasure with his brethren in
the outer world, and gave a sum of money to help in their
publication.  I cordially endorse his view of their value, and
comment this volume and those which will follow it to the earnest
study of all our members.
                                              ANNIE BESANT

************************************************************

                  AUTHOR'S NOTE

WHILE the President was absent from Adyar on a tour through
England and America last year, it fell to my lot to take charge
of the daily meetings of the students here.  In the course of
that time I delivered many little informal addresses and answered
hundreds of questions.  All that I said was taken down in
shorthand, and this book is the result of those notes.  In a
number of cases it happened that what was said on the roof at the
meetings was afterwards expanded into a little article for ~The
Theosophist~ or ~The Adyar Bulletin~; in all such cases I
reprint the article instead of the stenographic report, as it
has had the advantage of certain corrections and additions.
Necessarily a book of this sort is fragmentary in its nature;
necessarily also it contains a certain amount of repetition;
though this latter has been excised wherever possible.  Many of
the subjects treated here have also been dealt with in my earlier
books, but what is written here represents in all cases the
result of the latest discoveries in connection with those
subjects.  The subjects have been classified as far as possible,
and this volume is the second series, containing the nine
remaining sections.

ADYAR, July 1911.                      C.W.LEADBEATER

************************************************************

          MARS AND ITS INHABITANTS (pp. 410-425)

The present condition of the planet Mars is by no means
unpleasant.  It is a smaller planet than the Earth and more
advanced in age.  I do not mean that it is actually older in
years, for the whole chain of worlds came into existence - not
simultaneously indeed - but within a certain definite area of
time.  But being smaller it lives its life as a planet more
quickly.  It cooled more rapidly from the nebulous condition,
and it has passed through its other stages with corresponding
celerity.  When humanity occupied it in the third round it was
in much the same condition as is the Earth at the present time
-
that is to say, there was much more water than land on its
surface.  Now it has passed into comparative old age, and the
water surface is far less than that of the land.  Large areas of
it are at present desert, covered with a bright orange sandwich
gives the planet the peculiar hue by which we so readily
recognise it.  Like that of many of our own deserts, the soil is
probably fertile enough if the great irrigation system were
extended to it, as it no doubt would have been if humanity had
remained upon it until now.

The present population, consisting practically of members of the
inner round, is but a small one, and they find plenty of room
for themselves to live without great effort, in the equatorial
lands, where the temperature is highest and there is no
difficulty as to water.  The great system of canals which has
been observed by terrestrial astronomers was constructed by the
second order of moon-men when they last occupied the planet, and
its general scheme is to take advantage of the annual melting of
enormous masses of ice at the outer fringe of the polar
snow-caps.  It has been observed that some of the canals are
double, but the double line is only occasionally apparent; that
is due to the fore-thought of the Martian engineers.  The
country is on the whole level, and they had great dread of
inundations; and wherever they thought there was reason to fear
too great an outrush of water under exceptional circumstances
the second parallel canal was constructed to receive any
possible overflow and carry it away safely.

The actual canals themselves are not visible to terrestrial
telescopes; what is seen is the belt of verdure which appears
in a tract of country on each side of the canal only at the time
when the water pours in.  Just as Egypt exists only because of
the Nile, so do large districts on Mars exist only because of
these canals.  From each of them radiate at intervals
water-ways, which run some miles into the surrounding country
and are then subdivided into thousands of tiny streamlets, so
that a strip of country a hundred miles in width is thoroughly
irrigated.  In this area are forests and cultivated fields, and
vegetation of all sorts stands forth in the greatest profusion,
making upon the surface of the planet a dark belt which is
visible to us even forty million miles away when the planet is
at its nearest and favourably situated.

Mars is much farther from the centre of the system than we are,
and consequently the sun appears to its inhabitants scarcely
more than half the size that it does to us.  Nevertheless the
climate of the inhabited portions of the planet is very good,
the temperature during the day at the equator being usually about
70 degrees Fahrenheit, although there are not many nights of the
year when there is not a touch of frost.  Clouds are almost
unknown, the sky being for most of the year entirely clear.The
country is therefore to a large extent free from the
unpleasantness of rain or snow.  The Martian day is a few
minutes longer than out own and their year is nearly twice as
long as ours, and the variation of the seasons in the inhabited
part is but slight.
In physical appearance the Martians are not unlike ourselves,
except that they are considerably smaller.  The tallest men are
not above five feet in height and the majority are two or three
inches shorter.  According to our ideas they are somewhat broad
in proportion, having very great chest capacity - a fact which
may possibly be due to the rarity of the air and the consequent
necessity of deep breathing in order fully to oxygenate the
blood.  The whole civilised population of Mars is one race, and
there is practically no difference in features or complexion,
except that, just as among ourselves, there are blondes and
brunettes, some of the people having a faintly yellowish skin
and black hair, while the majority have yellow hair and blue or
violet eyes - somewhat Norwegian in appearance.  They dress
mostly in brilliant colours, and both sexes wear an almost
shapeless garment of some very soft material which falls straight
down from the shoulders down to the feet.  Generally the feet
are bare, though they sometimes use a sort of metal sandal or
slipper, with a thong round the ankle.

They are very fond of flowers, of which there is a great
variety, and their towns are built on the general plan of the
garden-city, the houses usually being one-storeyed only, but
built round inner courtyards and straggling over a great deal of
ground.  These houses look exteriorly as though built of
coloured glass, and indeed the material which is used is
transparent, but it is somehow so fluted that while the persons
inside enjoy an almost unimpeded view of their gardens, no one
from outside can see what is going on in the house.

The houses are not built up in blocks, but the material is
melted and poured into moulds; if a house is to be built, a sort
of double mould is first made in metal faced with cement, and
then the curious glass-like substance is melted and poured into
this mould,and when it is cold and hardened the moulds are taken
away, and the house is finished except for a certain amount of
polishing of the surface.  The doors are not exactly like ours,
since they have no hinges or bolts, and are opened and shut by
treading on certain spots in the ground, either without or
within.  They do not swing on hinges, but run back into the
walls on each side.  All these doors and all furniture and
fittings are of metal.  Wood seems to be used scarcely at all.

There is only one language in use over the whole planet, except
for the few savage tribes, and this language, like everything in
their world, has not grown up as ours have done, but has been
constructed to save time and trouble.  It has been simplified to
the last possible extent, and it has no irregularities of any
sort.  They have two methods of recording their thoughts.  One
is to speak into a small box with a mouthpiece on one side of
it, something like that of a telephone.  Each word so spoken is
by the mechanism expressed as a kind of complicated sign upon a
little plate of metal, and when the message has been spoken the
plate falls out and is found to be marked in crimson characters,
which can easily be read by those who are familiar with the
scheme.  The other plan is actually to write by hand, but that
is an enormously more difficult acquirement, for the script is
a
very complicated kind of shorthand which can be written as
rapidly as one can speak.  It is in this latter script that all
their books are printed, and these latter are usually in the
shape of rolls made of very thin flexible metal.  The engraving
of them is extremely minute, and it is customary to read it
through a magnifier, which is fixed conveniently upon a stand.
In the stand there is machinery which unrolls the scroll before
the magnifier at any desired rate, so that one read without
needing to touch the book at all.

On every hand one sees signs of a very old civilization, for the
inhabitants have preserved the tradition of all that was known
when the great life-wave of humanity occupied the planet, and
have since added to it many other discoveries.  Electricity seems
to be practically the sole motive power, and all sorts of
labour-saving machines are universally employed.

The people are on the whole distinctly indolent, especially
after they have passed their first youth.  But the comparatively
small size of the population enables them to live very easily.
They have trained various kinds of domestic animals to a far
higher condition of intelligent co-operation than has yet been
achieved upon earth, so that a great deal of servant's and
gardener's work is done by these creatures with comparatively
little direction.

One autocratic ruler governs the whole planet, but the monarchy
is not hereditary.  Polygamy is practised, but it is the custom
to hand over all children to the State at a very early age to be
reared and educated, so that among the vast majority of the
people there is no family tradition whatever, and no one knows
who is his father and mother.  there is no law compelling this,
but it is considered so decidedly the right thing to do and the
best for the children that the few families who choose to live
somewhat more as we do, and to educate their children at home,
are always regarded as selfishly injuring their prospects for
the sake of what is considered mere animal affection.

The state is thus in the position of universal guardian and
schoolmaster, and the school authorities of each district are
instructed carefully to sort the children according to the
aptitudes they display, and their line of life is decided for
them in this manner - a very wide range of choice, however,
being allowed the individual child as he approaches years of
discretion.  But children who show at the same time great
intellect and wide general capacity are set apart from the rest,
and trained with a view of becoming members of the ruling class.

The King has under him what may be called viceroys of large
districts, and they in turn have under them governors of smaller
districts, and so on down to what would be equivalent here to
the head man of a village.  All these officials are chosen by
the King from this group of specially educated children, and
when the time of his own death is considered to be approaching
it is from them or from among the already appointed officials
that he chooses his successor.

They have brought their scientific medical studies to such
perfection that disease has been eliminated, and even the
ordinary signs of the approach of old age have been to a large
extent got rid of.  Practically no one appears old, and it would
seem that they hardly feel old; but, after a life somewhat
longer than our own the desire to live gradually fades away, and
the man dies.  It is quite customary for a man who is losing
interest and feels that death is approaching (this corresponds
to what we would call a centenarian) to apply to a certain
scientific department which corresponds to what we might call a
school of surgery, and ask to be put painlessly to death - a
request which is always granted.

All these rulers are autocratic, each within his own sphere, but
appeal to a higher official is always possible, though the right
is not frequently exercised, because the people usually prefer
to acquiesce in any fairly reasonable decision rather than take
the trouble involved in an appeal.  The rulers on the whole seem
to perform their duties fairly well, but again one gets the
impression that they do so not so much from any pre-eminent
sense of right or justice as to avoid the trouble that would
certainly ensue from a fragrantly unjust decision.

one of the most remarkable things about this people is that they
have absolutely no religion.  There are no churches, no temple,
no places of worship of any sort whatever, no priest, no
ecclesiastical power.  The accepted belief of the people is what
we should call scientific materialism.  Nothing is true but what
can be scientifically demonstrated, and to believe anything
which cannot be so demonstrated is regarded as not only the
height of folly, but even as a positive crime, because it is
considered a danger to the public peace.

Martian history in the remote past was not unlike our own, and
there are stories of religious persecutions, and of peoples
whose beliefs were of so uncomfortable a nature that they forced
them not only into feverish energy for themselves, but also into
perpetual interference with the liberty of thought of other
people.  Martian public opinion is quite determined that there
shall never again be any opportunity for the introduction of
disturbing factors of that sort, and that physical science and
the lower reason shall reign supreme; and though there, as here,
events have occurred which material science cannot explain,
people find it best to say nothing about them.

Nevertheless on Mars, as in other places, there are a certain
number of people who know better than this, and many centuries
ago a few of these joined themselves together in a secret
brotherhood to meet and discuss these matters.  Very gradually
and with infinite precaution, they took other recruits into this
charmed circle, and so came into existence, in this most
materialistic of worlds, a secret society which not only
believed in superphysical worlds but knew practically of their
existence, for its members took up the study of mesmerism and
spiritualism, and many of them developed a good deal of power.

At the present time this secret society is very widely spread,
and at the head of it at this moment is a pupil of one of our
Masters.  Even now after all these centuries its existence is
not officially known to the authorities, but as a matter of fact
they something more than a suspicion of it, and they have
learned to fear it.  None of its members are actually identified
as such, but many are strongly suspected, and it seems to have
been observed that when any of these strongly suspected people
have in the past been injured or unjustly put to death, the
persons who were concerned in bringing about that result have
invariably died prematurely and mysteriously, though never in
any case has their death been traceable to any physical-plane
action on the part of the suspected member.  Consequently,
although such a belief is no doubt somewhat of an infringement
of the principles of pure reason by which everything is supposed
to be governed, it has come to be generally understood that it
is safest not to pry too closely into the beliefs of people who
seem to differ in some degree from the majority, so long as they
do not openly make profession of anything which would be
considered subversive of the good morals of materialism.

Driven far away from the pleasant equatorial regions into
inhospitable lands and impenetrable forests, there still exist
some remnants of the savage tribes who are descended from those
left behind when the great life-wave left Mars for the earth.
These are primitive savages at a lower stage than any now living
on the exterior of our earth, though bearing some resemblance to
one of our interior evolutions.

Some at least of the members of the secret society have learnt
how to cross without great difficulty the space which separates
us from Mars, and have therefore at various times tried to
manifest themselves through mediums at spiritualist seances, or
have been able, by the methods which they have learnt, to
impress their ideas upon poets and novelists.

The information which I have given above is based upon
observation and inquiry during various visits to the planet; yet
nearly all of it might be found in the works of various writers
within the last thirty or forty years, and in all such cases it
has been impressed by someone from Mars, although the very fact
of such impression was (at least in some cases) quite unknown to
the physical writer.

Of our future home, Mercury, we know much less than of Mars, for
visits to it have been hurried and infrequent.  Many people
would think it incredible that life such as ours could exist on
Mercury, with a sun that appears at least seven times as large
as it does here.  The heat, however, is not at all so intense as
would be supposed.  I am informed that this is due to a layer of
gas on the outskirts of the Mercurian atmosphere, which prevents
most of the heat from penetrating.  We are told that the most
destructive of all possible storms on Mercury is one which even
for a moment disturbs the stability of this gaseous envelope.
When that happens a kind of whirl-pool is set up on it, and for
a moment a shaft of direct sunlight comes from the sun through
its vortex.  Such a shaft instantly destroys whatever life comes
in its way, and burns up in a moment everything combustible.
Fortunately such storms are rare.  The inhabitants whom I have
seen there are much like ourselves, though again somewhat
smaller.

The influence of gravity both on Mars and Mercury is less than
half what it is on earth, but while on Mars I did not notice any
particular way in which advantage had been taken of this.  I
observed on Mercury that the doors of the houses were quite a
considerable height from the ground, needing what for us would
be a respectable gymnastic feat to reach them, though on Mercury
it is only a slight spring which is required.  All the
inhabitants of that planet are from birth possessed of etheric
sight; I remember that the fact was first brought to my notice
by observing a child who was watching the movements of some
crawling creature; and I saw that when it entered its abode he
was still able to follow its movements, even when it was deep
down under the ground.

---------------

End of C.W.Leadbeater's claimed observations.

---------
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 Jun 29 00:41:30 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:41:30 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: <+jwNOEA6uH1xEwgZ@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Uploads to theos-roots
Mime-Version: 1.0

For Information.

The next batch of uploads to theos-roots relating the the CWL troubles
circa 1906-9 are taken from *original* letters from Helen Dennis, one-
time Secretary of the E.S. in Chicago to a Miss Gosse in England.

To the best of my knowledge, this small quantity of archive material has
never before been published, having only recently come to light in
England.  I have seen and handled these original letters - there is no
doubt that they are 100% genuine.

These, as with the previous uploads, are offered in the spirit of the
T.S.

"There is no Religion Higher than Truth."

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 16:21:09 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:21:09 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL08.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0

CWL08.TXT

This text is from a carbon copy of a transcript written initially
   to Helen I. Dennis in America from Annie Besant.  Details
   follow:

--------------------------------------------

Shanti Kunja
Benares City
May 10th, 1906.

My Dear Mrs. Dennis:---

I am very grieved to read your letter.

You ask me what you are to think as to my position. This: I know
   Mr. Leadbeater to be a disciple of Master K; I have constantly
   met him out of the body, and seen him with the Masters, and
   trusted with their work.  I know that if he were evil minded
   this could not be.  I cannot therefore join in hounding him out
   of the T.S. in which he has been one of our best workers.

Further, I know how much terrible evil exists among young men, and
   the desperate straits in which they find themselves.  To deal
   with these evils falls to the lot of many a clergyman, parent,
   and teacher, and I cannot pour unlimited condemnation on an
   attempt to deal with them.

My own publication of the Knowlton pamphlet was a mistake; but it
   was made with good intent.  The Masters saw the motive, and
   cared not for the blunder, and what I did carried me to
   discipleship.

You speak of a petition made to me in India, to remove him from my
   side.  It is the first I have heard of it; there has been no
   such petition.  I looked up the Feb. Theosophist, which I had
   not read; I do not think the Colonel used my name to shield Mr.
   Leadbeater, and he speaks of attacks on himself.

The T.S. and E.S. cannot be "above reproach" in your sense.  The
   Coulomb attack of H.P.B. was made in the name of high morality
   and discredited the T.S.  But it had to bear it.  The forgery of
   Judge discredited the T.S. but we had to bear it, till Judge
   himself broke away; he was not expelled.  These trials come from
   time to time.

Doubtless from the worldly point of view I should save trouble by
   deserting Mr. Leadbeater, but I do not see that to be my duty.

As he is now publicly attacked, I have advised him to resign, and
   to appeal to Colonel Olcott to investigate the charges, and to
   decide the matter, and he to suspend his work meanwhile, The
   decision rightly lies with the President.

As to the American E.S., all its activities must be suspended.

It is sad that you have so been so hasty, instead of keeping
   silence till the T.S. President and Executive Council had had
   the charges laid before them.  Nothing would have been lost by
   taking the more dignified and constitutional line, and much
   public trouble would have been avoided.  I am surprised that Mr.
   Fullerton, who owes Mr. Leadbeater so much, has not acted with
   less precipitancy.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Annie Besant.

----------------------------

Uploaded by Alan Bain, June 1996

---------
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 Jun 29 01:09:57 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:09:57 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL09.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0

CWL09.TXT

Transcript of a letter from Helen Dennis, Corresponding Secretary
   of the Esoteric School of Theosophy in America, to a Miss Gosse
   in England.

-----------------------------------------

Mrs. Helen I. Dennis
218 E. 60th St.
Chicago.

June 4th 1906.

Dear Miss Gosse,

You can imagine my joy in receiving your letter. - This is the
   reason I have been unable to write decent letters this winter.
   Since last November when I learned the first "incredible" facts
   I have tried to do what was right without undue publicity and
   with some blunders of course as the result.  That I have walked
   the floor literally by the hour with a veritable bleeding heart
   goes without saying.  I of course laid the whole matter *first*
   before Mrs. Besant and the bitterest drop in my cup was, after
   weeks of waiting, to receive on Mch 26th or 27th I forget which
   - a letter from my beloved and revered teacher - actually asking
   me to cover up this crime and go on as though nothing had
   happened.  And now I am accused of hasty action!  Well nothing
   matters now that the T.S. officials have vindicated the cause of
   truth and purity - I am resigning my office as Corr Secy and the
   letter of announcement is in the hands of the printer - to be
   sent to the members.  I shall send you a copy when out.

You must not think I have done this thing alone - No, I have a
   husband first - who has stood nobly by me and advised every
   step.  Mr. Fullerton, Mr. Knothe - Mrs & Mrs Chidester, all the
   Sec'y of Discipline - Editor of Messenger - every official whom
   I have had to inform stands as one and are ready to stand the
   disgrace of the thing for the sake of the Society.

I am so glad you are with me. I felt sure you would be altho' I
   felt that it would be an official discourtesy to your E.S.
   superiors if I wrote of it to you - before they were ready to
   tell you officially.  I have tried to tell only those where it
   was absolutely necessary in the cause of official honor & the
   welfare of the Society.  I grasp your hand across the Sea and
   through eternity in the name of truthful friendship.

I cannot get over Mrs. Besant;s attitude - It has shaken my faith
   in her wisdom - though I will not let it be shaken as to her
   sincerity - Blinded by *what* delusion, do you suppose, she is
   doing this awful thing?  Well I must close - things are in a bad
   way here. Mr. C. Jinarajadasa has made a bad matter much worse
   than it need have been by so called defence of Mr L and Mrs B
   which is taking a most jesuitical turn.

Yours Lovingly,

Helen I. Dennis.

----------------------------

Transcribed from the original by Alan Bain, June 29th, 1996.

---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:25:12 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:25:12 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629062512.006cf8f0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Welcome

At 07:17 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Maybe they are trying to defend themselves against roving bandit gangs on
>horseback, which is what the mazes were really for in the first place.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Reeeeealy????? Where did you get that piece of information? I always
thought they were part of the gardening craze that enveloped England from
the earliest renaissance onwards, there are also mazes in France and Italy
(da Vinci left many designs for them and even Michelangelo designed some)
that could never be conceived of as anything but decorative (hedges two to
three feet high), and the Germans didn't seem to get into the fad until the
eighteenth century. There's a nice one in Wurzburg and I saw some real
beauties in Stockholm. I think the English were the first to really go crazy
for them and I had always be told that they were used by people into "The
old Religion" as a safe place to "do their thing". The kind of people who
could afford mazes (the aristocracy) didn't have to worry about bandits
because they had their own private guards. In any case, hedges would offer
no defense against a determined mounted enemy of any kind. Have you ever
ridden a horse? I could easily take one right through a boxwood hedge! (They
were almost always composed a boxwood) In any case a man on horseback would
be in a position to fire arrows or later weapons right over one of those
hedges as few of them are more than six feet high.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:56:31 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:56:31 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629065631.006d8f44@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Welcome

At 08:55 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960628072123.006dd73c@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>>It's sort of a running joke around here ever since the article in the AT by
>>>Carol Ward about some nonsense involving people drawing labyrinths on the
>>>ground, walking around in them and claiming great spiritual benefit from it.
>
>I have no idea when this article appeared, but I know of one community
>in England where this facility is available (free of charge) for anyone
>to try, and to make of it what they will.  A woman I spoke to last week
>tried it, and gained a lot from it.  If it works, as they say in show-
>biz, then keep it in the act.
>
>Difficult though it may be to believe [:-)] there are one or two people
>who think that shamanism is nonsense.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan: Calm down dear, I didn't write that, it was part of a message from
Chuck to me when I requested enlightenment on what in heaven you two were
going on about now. If you don't believe me ask him!

alexis

From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Jun 29 14:20:34 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 10:20:34 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606291526.LAA25056@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TI Web Page

I agree very much with using plain modern every day English, and
explanations that are easily understood & to the point.
Liesel
..............................................................................



>In message ,
>JRC  writes
>>Alan this is *wonderful* - who's the kind soul? Would you care to start
>>the discussion ... just take a shot and offer suggestions for the Home
>>Page (style, content, graphics & etc.) and the first few links? Anyone else?
>>                                                               -JRC
>
>Assuming it is still there, the graphic on the web page below looks OK
>for starters.  I would personally like to see the TS motto, but without
>the religious symbolism - especially that d...... swastika!  Maybe just
>the uroboros serpent, plus the motto.
>
>The first few links?  Not a single sanskrit or foreign language word!
>Plain English for surfers to understand (could be your department, John
>:-)).
>
>Over ...
>
>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 Sat Jun 29 15:52:58 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:52:58 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629115257_227642811@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alan,
the problem is that a purely mechanical action, such as walking a maze, may
make the person feel like they are accomplishing something, and some may have
actually gotten something out of it, but it has become a new age fad and as
such has become ridiculous, like idiots putting feathers in their hair and
deciding they are shamans, or twiddling some dials on an old radio-like
instrument and thinking that they have done psionics.  There is a deeper
reality that surface fads always miss.
Personally, I liken the labyrinth nonsense to a local Catholic place where
they have a flight of stairs that goes nowhere but the faithful who climb
those stairs (and drop a donation into the bucket next to them) are told that
that each time they go up the stairs they take five minutes off their time in
purgatory.
Of the making of fools there is no end.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 15:54:28 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:54:28 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629115427_227643256@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TI Web Page

If each page is a separate link, then it will be easier to download the
material.  So the question becomes what will be the material on the
succeeding pages.
My home page is set up so that the visitor goes from there to the material he
is looking for with a minimum of material on the opening page itself, merely
the name "Uncle Chuckies General Store" and my logo, which will probably be
replaced by a more interesting graphic as soon as we get it up, along with
the links.

Chuck
From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Jun 29 16:56:08 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 10:56:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: TI Web Page
In-Reply-To: <960629115427_227643256@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote:
> If each page is a separate link, then it will be easier to download the
> material.  So the question becomes what will be the material on the
> succeeding pages.
> My home page is set up so that the visitor goes from there to the material he
> is looking for with a minimum of material on the opening page itself, merely
> the name "Uncle Chuckies General Store" and my logo, which will probably be
> replaced by a more interesting graphic as soon as we get it up, along with
> the links.

Yeah ... I'm thinkin' the same thing ... maybe a nice TI logo, Alan's
line "Ancient Wisdom for a New Age", a single good, crisp, introductory
paragraph, and then a table of links, maybe to:
	1. The Three Objects
	2. A succint history of Theosophy, with TI placed in context.
	3. A page with abstracts of, and/or links to
	    a. Various lists & resources
	    b. Selected uploaded original texts
	    c. Selected texts/essays by current members
	4. A Form ... so a person can join TI.
	5. A page with any projects TI happens to be running.

						Just brainstorming, -JRC
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 23:20:24 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:20:24 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629192023_343741131@emout13.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alex,
I didn't say that they worked, I only said that was why they got put in.  The
reason they caught on so big in England was because the country houses were
very hard to defend and somebody thought that a maze, propley designe, would
stop horses.  You accurately point out the weakness of the theory, but it
seemed to work in practice, particularly during the 18th century when the
country houses were constant prey to  the Dick Turpins of the era.

Chuck
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 01:52:39 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 02:52:39 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: <76mq8VAn3d1xEwhq@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Cryptic
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960629065631.006d8f44@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960629065631.006d8f44@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>>Alan: Calm down dear, I didn't write that, it was part of a message from
>Chuck to me when I requested enlightenment on what in heaven you two were
>going on about now. If you don't believe me ask him!

Calmed down.  Who can tell *what* Chuck is going on about sometimes?
Mysterious and cryptic on-liners appear without reference to cause.
Maybe Chuck is an "acausal connecting principle" a la Jung?

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 02:18:10 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 03:18:10 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Web Page
In-Reply-To: <960629115427_227643256@emout16.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <960629115427_227643256@emout16.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>"Uncle Chuckies General Store" and my logo, which will probably be
>replaced by a more interesting graphic as soon as we get it up, along with
>the links.

Thanks for the input.  Maybe you'll let us know when the links are in
place?  I have bookmarked the home page ready ...

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 03:24:55 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:24:55 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629232453_343970093@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: TI Web Page

John,
sounds good to me.  And we must all remember, the more links a page has, the
greater the reason for folks to bookmark and keep coming back to it.

Chuck

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 04:34:23 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:34:23 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629003422_145383473@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

Alex,
I never cease to be amazed that you have not devoured him.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 04:36:43 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:36:43 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629003643_145383880@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

Alex,
I wonder if we could do an exorcism of the ES.  I always wanted to see some
of them turn their heads 360 and spew green glop.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 04:36:24 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:36:24 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629003623_145383930@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Bee

Alex,
I would be willing to be my next door neighbor's first -born on it.  And
you're right, American discourse is just a bit rough and tumble for just
about everyone but the Australians because they are even rougher.  It may
also have something to do with, dare I say it, the social class of the type
of people who become theosophists in various countries.

Chuck
From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 29 05:25:43 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 05:25:43 GMT
From: ramadoss@eden.com (M K Ramadoss)
Message-Id: <199606290522.AAA13787@natashya.eden.com>
Subject: Activity on alt.theosophy

Hi

I have not seen any messages on alt.theosophy. Wonder if this is due
to some purely mechanical problem or lack of posts.

This is posted on June 29, 12:25 AM cdt.

MK Ramdoss
________________________________________________________
Peace to all living beings.

      M K Ramadoss

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:27:43 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:27:43 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629062743.00671194@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 08:27 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>> Buddhism is a religion in any sense of the term, it may not have a
>>Pope or a Vatican but it has their equivalents, but none the less it IS a
>>religion. So too is Brahmanism, which has little if anything to do with
>>Vedic Philosophy. "Core Theosophy" as it exists today is a compendium of
>>both those religious beliefs. I reject them.
>
>	Viva the Second Objective.  We are each free to study
>the world's religions and select those parts that we like, and
>reject the rest.  This is what Theosophy is all about.  Take only
>what fits into your worldview.  Take only what works for you and
>leave the rest.  Its called being eclectic.  Works for me.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>Me too Jerry. And that, I believe is the reason theosophy was established.
I have always been flabbergasted at the present power structures denial of
eclecticism.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:32:00 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:32:00 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629063200.006ce580@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 08:27 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis: > Yes, I've heard of the
>>"faculty of Buddhi".....the thing that is beginning to worry me is that I am
>>beginning to be afraid that you think you've got it! One thing I am sure of
>>and that is that the people who created "Core Theosophy" don't really show
>>too much evidence of it. If, that is, it exists in other than fertile
>>imaginations.
>
>	As far as I know, one of the primary characteristics
>of the "faculty of Buddhi" is acceptance.  This implies tolerance
>and open-ness to new ideas.  "Core Theosophy" is a mental
>construct, made of manas, perhaps with some buddhi-manas
>insight, but manas nonetheless.  It serves well as a step
>along the Path, but all theosophists should recognize that it
>is but a step, and needs to be transcended some day. This
>is exactly the function of Jnana Yoga.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>As usual, while I flinch at the eastern termonology, I agree with the
essence of what you're saying, I suppose I am a jnana Yogi crossed with a
karma yogi....at least in that terminology. My biggest problem with
theosophy as it has evolved is that I am a Westerner and I truly believe
that the West possesses the same information anent reality that the East
does. It's just a little more effort to attain to it.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:34:32 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:34:32 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629063432.006c9be0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 08:27 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>. We run a
>>gamut from Jerry S. who has a strong belief in certain Buddhist-Vedic
>>speculative cosmology to me who doesn't believe in any of it.That's what
>>makes it "theosophical" and it's entirely contradictory to any kind of "core
>>doctrine" policy. So actually Martin you'll have to do your questioning to
>>each "small "t" theosophist individually. Have fun!
>	
>	As Alexis says, Martin, you will doubtless get a different
>answer from each of us.  But this is exactly as it should be.  We are
>all on different levels of understanding.  We are all seekers of truth.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>That's absolutely corrrect, "SEEKERS" is the operative term. What scares me
about "Core Theosophists" is that they seem to believe they are FINDERS".

alexis

From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Jun 29 06:30:45 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:30:45 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy
In-Reply-To: <199606290522.AAA13787@natashya.eden.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, M K Ramadoss wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have not seen any messages on alt.theosophy. Wonder if this is due
> to some purely mechanical problem or lack of posts.
>
> This is posted on June 29, 12:25 AM cdt.

Doss ...
	I had to finally get my university's sysop to put alt.theosophy
on our newsreader list, and he had to contact the newsfeeder to get it
fed to our machines - but I now show 14 messages ... the latest being
June 27. (this as of 6/29, 12:30 AM MDT).
								-JRC
From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:37:04 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:37:04 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629063704.006c3980@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: science + religion = theosophy

At 08:28 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>But regarding the S.D. I'll
>>just repeat one quote from HPB. "If you can understand the Proem, you don't
>>need the book, and if you cannot understand the Proem, the book is useless".
>
>	Thanks for the quote, Alexis.  I love it.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>I do too jerry, and I always have! Both my life partner and I have never
been able to understand why anyone would go beyond the proem, it says it
all, and is a perfect condensation of the Rg Veda.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:44:05 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:44:05 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629064405.006bec50@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: reincarnation

At 08:28 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>>Well once again I have to say that based upon my own experience, I do not
>>believe in Reincarnation" as usually presented. I believe in it in a way,
>>but not as any kind of PERSONAL continuation.
>	
>	I hate to say this Alexis, but your view of reincarnation sounds
>like Core Theosophy to me.  As you know, HPB describes eloquently
>how reincarnation works in the annex to Isis Unveiled, where she says
>that the impersonal Ego reincarnates, not the personal ego.
>Elsewhere she says that only the "aroma" of this life will continue
>on because only the "aroma" of each life is absorbed by the Ego.
>If your view differs from HPB's, please amplify.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>Jerry: if the"impersonal ego" equates to what HPB called The Reincarnating
Jiva, then I agree with her absolutely. Where I differ is that based upon
both my experience as a Magician and as a Shaman,it's my experience  that
"The Perispirit" or immediate "higher self" of an excarnate, after it's data
bank is telemetered to the Impersonal Ego, goes on in it's own evolutionary
path. It's a kind of blending of theosophy and spiritualism because in my
experience both are intrinsically valid.

As you get to know me better you'll find I seldom disagree with Yelena
Blavatskaya, but I very rarely agree with those who came after her whom I
view as "revisionists".

alexis


From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:49:09 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:49:09 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629064909.006deb58@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Some Judge Letters

At 08:47 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <960627191010_341735020@emout07.mail.aol.com>,
>Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>>Eldon,
>>Interesting stuff.  You know, of course, that the Coues mentioned is the
>>infamous Dr. Coues of the "Day by day, I am getting better and better,"
>>cliche.
>>
>>Chuck
>
>Are you sure - his name on a book I have of his is Emile.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan and Chuck: We are dealing with two different "Coues", the one WQJ was
so excercised about was Dr. Elliot Coues, who was one of the original group
that established the Theosophical society in 1875 but who, for personal
reasons (Primarily thwarted ambitions), became a very great enemy of the
society (lawsuits etc,). Emile Coues, the Frenchman, was the one who did
"day by day, I am getting better and better".

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 06:51:52 1996
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:51:52 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629065152.006d1e5c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists

At 08:52 PM 6/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <199606272319.TAA14391@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson"
> writes
>>Ultimately the whole point
>>is to become a theosopher, one who theosophizes-- rather than a
>>Theosophist, one who believes what someone else says about
>>theosophy.
>>
>>Don't you agree?
>
>I dunno about Martin, but I do!
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>That's it Alan, that's it precisely, the difference between "process
theosophist" and "Core Theosophist" the former is a "theosophizer" and the
latter,"A Theosophist"....I wish I'd thought of that line.Paul is to be
congratulated.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 07:00:11 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:00:11 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629070011.006c8728@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Joy Mills and I

At 12:38 AM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I never cease to be amazed that you have not devoured him.
>
>Chuck
>
>But Uncle Chuckie, that's exactly what he wants me to do! No, I'll be nice
if it kills him! "Always be nice to your enemies, nothing annoys them more"
(Oscar Wilde) Remember, if one were truly a sadist, one would never gratify
a masochist.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 07:04:55 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:04:55 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629070455.006d3f2c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

At 12:39 AM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I wonder if we could do an exorcism of the ES.  I always wanted to see some
>of them turn their heads 360 and spew green glop.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Oh I could do so easily, especially if I had some experienced
co-operants...but my excorcisms work and they are dreadfully final..no
"green glop" though......in fact....no nothing! It is also very hard on the
excorcisee, that is, if they were consciously cooperating with the excised
intelligences. I really do mean "excised".

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 07:12:18 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:12:18 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629071218.006ecc4c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Bee

At 12:39 AM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I would be willing to be my next door neighbor's first -born on it.  And
>you're right, American discourse is just a bit rough and tumble for just
>about everyone but the Australians because they are even rougher.  It may
>also have something to do with, dare I say it, the social class of the type
>of people who become theosophists in various countries.
>
>Chuck
>
>Oh I think so...in fact I am sure...Theosophy, especially in English
speaking Countries has always been a dreadfully middle-class and
hyper-respectable thing.

As to the Ozzies, well the American Press never called him the "swish bish".
But when it comes to "discussion" Americans tend to be among the most
happily antagonistic arguers. Now no one can equal the Israelis, all one has
to do is watch a televised session of the Knesset and one sees folks who
really LOVE to argue! A Jewish friend of mine told me that's because
"whenever you have two Jews you have AT LEAST three opinions!"
That's why I  like them so much, you can never really get too mad at someone
who always says "But, on the other hand"! That's what's wrong with Core
Theosophists they NEVER say that.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sat Jun 29 07:15:30 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:15:30 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960629071530.006eef48@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy

At 01:25 AM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have not seen any messages on alt.theosophy. Wonder if this is due
>to some purely mechanical problem or lack of posts.
>
>This is posted on June 29, 12:25 AM cdt.
>
>MK Ramdoss
>________________________________________________________
>Peace to all living beings.
>
>      M K Ramadoss
>
>
>Doss: I really think so, I tried to access alt.theosophy last night but to
no avail. I think it's going to be quite some time before it really get's
moving. Too many people can't access easily. I have to go through that
alternate gateway in England to post to it, though I can access it to read
via Netscape. That's just too much trouble for most people. If we're all
patient, everything will fall into place, and it will get active.

alexis

From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 29 14:17:31 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 16:17:31 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606291417.QAA18000@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Martin vs. Process Theosophists


Paul: First of all, let me thank you for this fine posting of yours.
There is, however, a lot of history, both long-term (regarding TSs)
as short-term (regarding disturbing events on theos-l) that plays a role in
my complaint on this list.
Let me deal with your post:


Paul>Martin, you seem angry at "a lot of other `process' theosophists
who have not presented *arguments* against the Theosophical
teachings."

	Well, I'm especially disturbed about the dichotomy that
has been set up by Alexis (supported by Chuck and not reacted to
by an indifferent majority) regarding 'process' theosophists and
'core' theosophists on this list.
The 'core' theosophists are of course, 'religiously adherents'
to the ideas of HPB, Leadbeater, GdP,etc, etc. , and, thus, looked
upon as pathetic creatures by people like Alexis who thinks himself
excepted from such an attitude. Look at the postings from the last
two months and you will get a rough idea about this point.

This is my impression, of course, and I believe much has changed
already for the better (although one can never be sure of these
things).
I think that there has been a kind of projection of frustrations
about what happens and has happened in the TSs by some listmembers
(like Alexis) on other listmembers as a result of this dichotomy
of 'process' vs. 'core' theosophists.
Now, the fact is, I'm very sensitive to this kind of things and I
don't like what I've seen happening on this list.
Although I believe that Alexis is a sincere human being, doing what
he thinks must be done, I don't think it fair that he labels people
like he is doing. It leads us nowhere but in further division.
It is clear to all theosophists on this list that we must do our
thinking for ourselves and not rigidly cling to theosophical teachings.
It is also clear however, that we have to have to offer something
to the public, I mean to those who are seekers and aspirants on the
spiritual path. There's a delicate balance here which may not have been
found on this list (how to present T/theosophy to the inquiring public).
It's an excellent topic of discussion, I'd suggest.





Paul> Alexis and Jerry S. are exempt, you say.  But since process
Theosophist is AFAIK Alexis's term, and no one else has
explicitly claimed it, I don't understand who these miscreants
are who ought to have presented arguments against the
Theosophical teachings.  They are the people who are "too smart
to believe any of this core theosophy nonsense," but who are
they?


	Paul: if you read the postings of the last two months carefully
you may see the confusion that has been on this list regarding 'core'
Theosophy, 'core'-Theosophists, labeling, classifying people into
parties where IMO it was really unnecessary to do so.
My point was to clear up some of this confusion. Maybe your posting
serves this purpose far better. Let's hope it clears this point.



Paul> You yourself say that you regard such a division as very
simplistic and "this labeling as a kind of *insult*" yet you
seem to be lashing out at some unnamed people you are dividing
off and labeling.  I just don't get it.

	Again, my point is not to state a list of names, but
to get some clear idea as how people see these things.
If someone says: I reject most of the Theosophical teachings,
let him or her give arguments against these and present some
viable alternatives. Let s/he *show* that s/he has done some
fine thinking for him/herself, so that we can discuss it.
IOW, i'm trying to get these things explicit.
Another thing is that I regard indifference in attitude regarding
 this matter of labeling as a very serious flaw.
We must clear up these things.



Paul>On the chance that for some reason I may be one of the people
targeted by your complaint, let me state that I have absolutely
no inclination to present arguments against the Theosophical teachings
as such.  I have presented arguments about the literalistic, fundamentalistic
way some Theosophists approach them. And the stultifying effect this has had
on the movement as a whole.


	That's a completely different thing, but I'm glad you mention it.
 We have to seperate between fundamentalistic ways of approaching teachings
and the teachings themselves. Paul, that's exactly what it is all about!


Paul>I agree with Alexis about `process theosophy' to the extent
 that theosophy is primarily a *way of knowing* and not an *object of
knowledge*.  What is there to be mad at in that?  Those who obsess over
theosophy as a body of doctrines are IMO mistaking the pointing finger
for the moon.


	I agree with that. It would be nice if there were more discussions
about that, I mean how we see T/theosophy as helpful in our life.
There remains this question of the delicate balance ,however, when we
want to 'promulgate the teachings'.


 Paul>I am tremendously appreciative to HPB, G de P et al for
formulating that body of doctrines, and feel that I have gained
a lot from their study.  But I also feel that I wasted a chunk
of my life mistaking the finger for the moon, imagining that I
knew something when all I did was parrot others.  Ultimately the whole point
is to become a theosopher, one who theosophizes-- rather than a
Theosophist, one who believes what someone else says about
theosophy.
Don't you agree?

	Yes, I agree with the added note that 'promulgating the teachings'
is an inherently difficult thing to do when one takes group dynamics
into account. A body of people may want to do this promulgation and someone
may differ in opinion as how and what to do it. It requires a very great
tolerance and real 'brotherhood' to let each one do it their way
within such an organization. Next to impossible.. :)


Martin


From euser@euronet.nl Sat Jun 29 14:17:38 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 16:17:38 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606291417.QAA18009@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Holiday break

Hi,


after some long and intensive discussions on this list, I can use
a good break to refresh my mind. I'm not sure how long it will take.
I will look whether I have to do some rounding off of recent posts
and try to do so.

Before I leave I want to direct your attention to the following URL:

http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvan.htm

That's the homepage of the School of the Natural Order.
Vitvan (original name: deBit) was associated with the Theosophical Society
and some of its members (he has held lectures there; Evans-Wentz was a
visitor at his farm).
I've read some of the material there and it is extremely interesting
and pertinent. His material is a bit in between Adyar theosophy, Point Loma
and Bailey , but in a different style and more up to date.
He has developed an interesting approach to the Ancient Wisdom tradition,
translated it (partly), so to speak, in psychological terms, more easily
recognizable than the often difficult accessible theosophical teachings.
It may well constitute a further development in T/theosophy.
Have a look and enjoy..

Martin

PS If you know of any interesting webpages, please let me know, either
on this list or by E-mail to me. It's a service to the world at large
because I mention these pages in my FAQ to the newage forum.
Thanks in advance!

From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 29 14:52:04 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 09:52:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

John: I think I have all the posts on my ISP server. If you (or anyone
else) like, I can e-mail them to you directly. Let me know.
..doss


On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, JRC wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, M K Ramadoss wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I have not seen any messages on alt.theosophy. Wonder if this is due
> > to some purely mechanical problem or lack of posts.
> >
> > This is posted on June 29, 12:25 AM cdt.
>
> Doss ...
> 	I had to finally get my university's sysop to put alt.theosophy
> on our newsreader list, and he had to contact the newsfeeder to get it
> fed to our machines - but I now show 14 messages ... the latest being
> June 27. (this as of 6/29, 12:30 AM MDT).
> 								-JRC
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 15:54:11 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:54:11 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629115409_227643158@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: process = theosophy

Is that why these spirit things are dropping into my petunias?

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 15:54:07 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:54:07 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629115406_227643225@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Life on Mars

Alan,
Well, it looks like the weapon designed by Thomas Edison after the Martian
Invasion of 1897 (see H. G. Wells volume on the subject) must have worked
because they ain't no Martians left.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 15:54:07 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:54:07 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629115405_227643238@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Some Judge Letters

Alan,
Yes.  He became quite the object of ridicule in this country in the 1920's.
 There was even a famous editorial cartoon of Dr. Coues in his frock coat
with his head firmly stuck in the clouds, saying "Day by day I'm getting
dryer and dryer" while underneath the bootleggers were carrying out their
business.

Chuck the Heretic
From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sat Jun 29 16:00:06 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 10:00:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960629071530.006eef48@pop.slip.net>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

A bit of Usenet history for the general pleasure & edification those
having trouble w/ alt.theosophy ....

The whole thing actually started (as much of modern computing did) with a
bunch of students fooling around - `round the late 70's early 80's some
kids at Duke and U of N. Carolina built a system of Unix shell scripts to
transfer messages between their computers w/ UUCP (Unix to Unix Copy - a
protocol Unix machines use to transfer files automatically). At
programmed times, one computer called the other and automatically logged
into a special account that activated the file transfer. This ultimately
grew into the Usenet news system. At first it had no connections to the
Internet - was restricted just to the Unix people. But as the Internet
grew, more and more of the big Unix machines were also becoming Internet
hosts. in the mid eighties, NNTP (Network News Transfer Protocal) entered
the Internet world - a much better tool that allowed Net News to be
distributed widely and efficiently ... and it made it possible to get
news through client/server applications (so it became possible for people
to get news without a local copy of newsgroups). However, Usenet and the
Internet are still *not* the same thing - they are sort of like two big
interacting systems ... which is the cause (I `spect) of a lot of the
problems people are having.
	In general, three seperate things are necessary to get alt.theosophy:
everyone on theos-l has to be on a machine that is, or has access to an
Internet gateway (or has to log on to such a machine from a PC). This
machine has to have a news *feed* - that is, has to be fed Usenet news,
it has to have a *list* of those groups from which it accepts feeds, and
has to be running a *newsreader* .... that will display the messages. But
the process is not automatic ... i.e., there are continually new
newsgroups being formed, and dissolving, but when a new one is formed it
will not automatically be added to any particular feed, or to any
particular machine's list, and when one is dead, it doesn't automatically
dissappear (i.e., one may be able to subscribe on one's system, and it
appears on the list of those you've subscribed to, but nothing ever
appears on it). System operators are a harried bunch ... and most are
behind the curve. They will periodically add groups or take others off of
their lists, but this has to be done manually.
	Of course, one option for those without alt.theosophy running on
their gateway machine is to try to go from that machine to another
machine that *does* have access (and that way to use that somewhat
circuitious route has already been described), or try to vector into to
the thing from the Web ... but these are not very convenient means (and
in fact somewhat defeat the whole purpose of a Usenet group - its
supposed to be *easy*).
	So, (in the interest of dramatically increasing alt.theosophy's
membership) ... those still having trouble are probably just *waiting*
for alt.theosophy to appear on the list of groups they can subscribe to
- but it might be a *long wait*. However, many sysop's really do wish to
serve their clientele ... and will gladly add groups when there is a
direect request to do so. If you simply contact your system
administrator (and quite often an email message to "operator@domain"
will do it) and ask for alt.theosophy to be added, it may be done quite
quickly. Thing is, when this is done, it means that the list will begin
to appear to *everyone* on your machine that looks through the lists its
possible to subscribe to. So the process of getting access for yourself
is also the thing that can speed the growth of the list. (I, for
instance, periodically look through the long list of possible groups on
my mainframe ... just to see if anything strikes my fancy). So everyone
that gets the group added as something accessible on their machine also,
in essence, increases the chances of newcomers (both to the group and
theosophy in general) joining the list.
							Anyway, -JRC
							
							
From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sat Jun 29 21:59:06 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 14:59:06 -0700
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Message-Id: <9606292159.AA31931@toto.csustan.edu>
Subject: Unveiled Isis


Abrantes writes:

>HPB at book iii (start page 116, final page 145) page 141 says:
>gnostic philosophy, understand it by another way>
>
>No. It is not true that catholic doctrine preaches that Jesus
>and Christ are the same thing. Christ is called the "anointed",
>that everyone can turn himself an become "partakers of the
>divine nature", "so that we might become God".  Below I
>reproduce some passages from Catholic Catechism. I think that
>HPB  refers to same doctrine when she talk about gnostic
>doctrine about Christ.

     Since you did not give the chapter you are reading from, I'm
at a loss to look up and check what you are quoting.  However, I
suspect either a faulty translation or that you are misreading
what Blavatsky is saying.  In truth, HPB was very knowledgeable
concerning early Christianity and Gnosticism and was well aware
of the differences between "Jesus" and "Christ."  So it is
unlikely that she is saying what you suggesting.  In a later
article entitled "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" she
published an extensive discussion on the meaning of the word
"christos" and its variations (ie "chreistos" "chrestos").

>http://webzone1.co.uk/www/jcrawley/ccc_cont.htm
>430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the
>angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which
>expresses both his identity and his mission.[18]

Since Jesus, is a Greek name, it is more likely that Gabriel gave
the savior in the Christian New Testament a Hebrew name such as
Joshua or Jehoshua.  Jesus is a Greek translation of these.

>436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the
>Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name
>proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the
>divine mission that "Christ" signifies.

Yes, one is a "translation" of the other, but the words do not
have quite the same meaning, so the translation is not a very
good one, but perhaps the closest they could come.  The Messiah
in Hebrew tradition is anointed with oils, and refers to a
political King who was to bring world peace.  The reason why the
Jews never accepted Jesus as their expected Messiah is because he
was not a King in the political sense, and he did not bring
peace.  Rather, within a generation of the crucifixion of the
Biblical Jesus, the Romans destroyed the Temple and forced the
Jews to leave the city and settle elsewhere.  Though Christos
also translates as "anointed" that is where the similarity ends.
Christos is a far more metaphysical notion than what the Jews
could ever have understood from the word Messiah.  Christos was a
term used in the Greek mysteries denoting one who came to full
realization of the  divinity dwelling within him.
Perhaps you will furnish the chapter number and a more extensive
quote so that I can find it.  Then we will be able to discuss
this particular quote in more detail.

JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 23:21:01 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:21:01 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629192059_343741652@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

Alex,
Then in the name of siblinghood they by all means should be
exercized--er--exorcized.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 23:22:34 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:22:34 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629192234_343741728@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Bee

Alex
the Knesset is great fun to watch.  I have always been a fan of boxing.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Jun 29 23:22:27 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:22:27 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629192226_343741761@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy

I've been having some trouble getting through to the local server, so I
haven't seen it for a few days.  Let me know what's happening.

Chuck
From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Jun 29 23:45:48 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 18:45:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy
In-Reply-To: <960629192226_343741761@emout14.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Chuck:

It looks like that the local server which is responsible for
alt.theosophy may be having some problem.

BTW, your difficulty in getting on your server may be due to inadequate
telephone lines if you find the lines busy.

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss



From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 30 00:46:00 1996
Date: 29 Jun 96 20:46:00 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists
Message-Id: <960630004559_76400.1474_HHL65-1@CompuServe.COM>

>Another thing is that I regard indifference in attitude regarding
> this matter of labeling as a very serious flaw.
	Martin, what you you mean here?  How
do you know that the "indifference" isn't tacit agreement?

> We have to seperate between fundamentalistic ways of
>approaching teachings and the teachings themselves
	What are "fundamentalistic ways of approaching
teachings?" Do you mean believing in them as gospel truth?
I think that each theosophist has to decide for themself
what is true and what is false.  To say that they are all true,
or to say that none of them are true, are the two possible
extreme views.  The truth, as is often the case, lies in the
middle.  How do we separate the true from the false?  By
individual experience.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Sun Jun 30 01:30:41 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:30:41 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists
In-Reply-To: <960630004559_76400.1474_HHL65-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote:
> >Another thing is that I regard indifference in attitude regarding
> > this matter of labeling as a very serious flaw.
> 	Martin, what you you mean here?  How
> do you know that the "indifference" isn't tacit agreement?

Or perhaps far more likely, its just the Net. There are always multiple
discussions running ... and probably most people only follow one or two
in any depth, and simply skim the rest. To think indifference to any
thread, or issue within a thread, is a serious flaw, is to assume everyone
on the list carefully reads every post, and has plenty of interest in
(and time for) responding to every point. But that just isn't the reality
of the Net ... on this list or any other.
							Regards, -JRC
From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 30 02:28:49 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:28:49 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606300228.TAA24473@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Process Theosophists?  A Comment to Martin

Martin writes:

>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>>Arguments and alternatives, please !

Daniel comments:

Martin, I agree with you.  I really don't know what the reasoning and thinking
is behind the mere statements made by these "process theosophists."  I would
really love to understand their point of view;  I might learn something!  But
with the possible exception of Jerry S, I have heard very little in
explanation from
any other process theosophist.

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 30 02:32:00 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:32:00 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606300232.TAA25892@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Alexis on Dr. Elliot Coues

Alexis writes:

>Alan and Chuck: We are dealing with two different "Coues", the one WQJ was
so excercised about was Dr. Elliot Coues, who was one of the original group
that established the Theosophical society in 1875 but who, for personal
reasons (Primarily thwarted ambitions), became a very great enemy of the
society (lawsuits etc,). Emile Coues, the Frenchman, was the one who did
"day by day, I am getting better and better".


You are half way right, Alexis.  BUT, as far as I know,  Elliot Coues was NOT
 involved in the founding of the T.S. in 1875.  I believe that Dr. Coues
first met
 HPB and Olcott in Europe in the summer of 1884.

Daniel

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 01:17:33 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 02:17:33 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Coue
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960629064909.006deb58@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960629064909.006deb58@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>Emile Coues, the Frenchman, was the one who did
>"day by day, I am getting better and better".

Yes, but 'tis Coue with an accent over the "e".

Alan, of real "lower class" origins.
---------
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 Jun 30 01:05:26 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 02:05:26 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Down and dirty
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960628195741.006dfbb0@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960628195741.006dfbb0@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>You will notice it outrages all
>foreigners, Kim, Martin, Bjorn, even Alan, they just don't understand our
>"frontier mentality"...Americans get 'down and dirty"

.. and that is 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 blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 30 02:56:14 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:56:14 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606300256.TAA02252@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: The Mahatma Letters


Alexis writes:

 I dismiss the "Mahatma Letters" as irrelevant because , having
studied them over a course of some 30 years I have found them to be so
mutually contradictory and lacking in real content that it is not simply
that I consider them to be irrelevant but that I don't consider them to be
valid. In other words I believe them to be not frauds, but not real either.
I believe the HPB produced them and apported them whenever she needed
particularly unarguable support in a particular goal of hers. If she could
apport tea cups (and I believe she could) then this would be a really simple
feat. Basically I also have to say that I don't find the "Mahatma Letters"
particularly intellectually or ethically impressive.....


Daniel comments:

Having studied the Mahatma Letters for about 25 years, I find myself
totally disagreeing with these statements by Alexis.  As usual, he
gives no detailed, concrete examples to illustrate his
ipse dixit statements.
Could it be that such statements by Alexis
are  "lacking in real content" and, therefore, as  "irrelevant" as
The Mahatma Letters?

Daniel




From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 03:23:44 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:23:44 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960629232343_343969450@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy

John,
Thanks for the explanation.  Like Alex, I view these things as glorified
typewriters and while I can pretty much find my way around the various
aspects of the net, I have absolutely no idea how it works.

Chuck

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 06:50:18 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:50:18 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630065018.006c54f8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Welcome

At 07:23 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>I didn't say that they worked, I only said that was why they got put in.  The
>reason they caught on so big in England was because the country houses were
>very hard to defend and somebody thought that a maze, propley designe, would
>stop horses.  You accurately point out the weakness of the theory, but it
>seemed to work in practice, particularly during the 18th century when the
>country houses were constant prey to  the Dick Turpins of the era.
>
>Chuck
>
>I thought Dick Turpin constrained his activities to holding up coaches on
the highways. I've never heard of people like Turpin attacking some major
country estate of an Earl or such.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:35:30 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:35:30 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630073530.006cce78@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Cryptic

At 10:39 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960629065631.006d8f44@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>>Alan: Calm down dear, I didn't write that, it was part of a message from
>>Chuck to me when I requested enlightenment on what in heaven you two were
>>going on about now. If you don't believe me ask him!
>
>Calmed down.  Who can tell *what* Chuck is going on about sometimes?
>Mysterious and cryptic on-liners appear without reference to cause.
>Maybe Chuck is an "acausal connecting principle" a la Jung?
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>There was a short series of crypticisms comeing from you to him and him to
you talking about "mazes"...I asked him what in heavens's name the two of
you were "going on" about, and that was his response.

As for me, I would be the very last person to make fun of mazes, if we get
that piece of property I love so much in Mendocino, I intend to put my
"circle" in the middle of a maze, and I'll probably use the "circle maze"
leading up to glastonbury Tor as my model. It'll be Russian Olvie rather
than Boxwood , of course, Boxwood takes centuries to get to "size". I also
don't know how well Boxwood would thrive exposed to the sea mists all the
time (too much salt) Russian Olive can survive anything.

alexei

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 02:25:46 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 03:25:46 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: TI Web Page
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message ,
JRC  writes
>
>Yeah ... I'm thinkin' the same thing ... maybe a nice TI logo, Alan's
>line "Ancient Wisdom for a New Age", a single good, crisp, introductory
>paragraph, and then a table of links, maybe to:
>       1. The Three Objects

Naturally!

>       2. A succint history of Theosophy, with TI placed in context.

I would give this a lower priority than 2.  It's a very complicated
area.

>       3. A page with abstracts of, and/or links to
>           a. Various lists & resources

Including links to other small 't' resources ...
>
>           b. Selected uploaded original texts

VERY carefully selected, and lower down the scale.
>
>           c. Selected texts/essays by current members

Well, there is already my own on the existing Web page, which I can
upload again.  For me, this is the high priority area, for it will show
what TI members are doing and thinking *now* - and hopefully, why.

>       4. A Form ... so a person can join TI.

Essential!

>       5. A page with any projects TI happens to be running.

Like ... ?  I doubt my theos-roots uploads would qualify; too small an
area.
>
>                                               Just brainstorming, -JRC

Great, now get writing ...?  It is possible to get a great deal of text
into 5MB!

Alan :-)
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Jun 30 13:24:39 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 09:24:39 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606301430.KAA04195@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TI Web Page



Sounds good
Liesel
......................................................................
>
>Yeah ... I'm thinkin' the same thing ... maybe a nice TI logo, Alan's
>line "Ancient Wisdom for a New Age", a single good, crisp, introductory
>paragraph, and then a table of links, maybe to:
>	1. The Three Objects
>	2. A succint history of Theosophy, with TI placed in context.
>	3. A page with abstracts of, and/or links to
>	    a. Various lists & resources
>	    b. Selected uploaded original texts
>	    c. Selected texts/essays by current members
>	4. A Form ... so a person can join TI.
>	5. A page with any projects TI happens to be running.
>
>						Just brainstorming, -JRC
>
>

From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Jun 30 13:48:04 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 09:48:04 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Message-Id: <199606301454.KAA04796@ultra1.dreamscape.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TI Web Page

When you get it set up, please let me know how to contribute text. I'm never
going to get to doing my own home page, but maybe I'd contribute to TI's.
Liesel
...................................................................



>In message ,
>JRC  writes
>>
>>Yeah ... I'm thinkin' the same thing ... maybe a nice TI logo, Alan's
>>line "Ancient Wisdom for a New Age", a single good, crisp, introductory
>>paragraph, and then a table of links, maybe to:
>>       1. The Three Objects
>
>Naturally!
>
>>       2. A succint history of Theosophy, with TI placed in context.
>
>I would give this a lower priority than 2.  It's a very complicated
>area.
>
>>       3. A page with abstracts of, and/or links to
>>           a. Various lists & resources
>
>Including links to other small 't' resources ...
>>
>>           b. Selected uploaded original texts
>
>VERY carefully selected, and lower down the scale.
>>
>>           c. Selected texts/essays by current members
>
>Well, there is already my own on the existing Web page, which I can
>upload again.  For me, this is the high priority area, for it will show
>what TI members are doing and thinking *now* - and hopefully, why.
>
>>       4. A Form ... so a person can join TI.
>
>Essential!
>
>>       5. A page with any projects TI happens to be running.
>
>Like ... ?  I doubt my theos-roots uploads would qualify; too small an
>area.
>>
>>                                               Just brainstorming, -JRC
>
>Great, now get writing ...?  It is possible to get a great deal of text
>into 5MB!
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:06:41 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:06:41 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630120640_424710737@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Cryptic

Alan,
No, I'm a practicing Chaos Magician, which means things get a little chaotic
every now and then.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:06:35 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:06:35 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630120634_424710776@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Web Page

Alan,
I ope to have things pretty well fixed up by the end of the week.  The person
doing the work for me has been swamped with other things.

Chuck
From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 19:12:28 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:12:28 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630191228.006cbad8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: TI Web Page

At 04:34 AM 6/30/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Great, now get writing ...?  It is possible to get a great deal of text
>into 5MB!
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>With Alan's amendments it certainly looks good to me. And I do think Alan's
efforts on Theos-Roots are anything but "too small to qualify". In any cast
T.I. is lucky to have JRC he's a "real pro" on this computer stuff!

alexis

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:25:53 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:25:53 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630192551_344616919@emout12.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Welcome

Alex,
No, an earl or above would probably be taking a cut of the take.  It was the
houses of the squirearchy that were attacked and yes, Dick Turpin did, along
with Jack Wild and a few others in that period.

Chuck

From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Jun 30 04:16:27 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:16:27 -0700 (MST)
From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation)
Message-Id: <199606300416.VAA27746@web.azstarnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE:  Theosophy for Beginners is True Too

Thanks, Eldon, for what you have written below on
"Theosophy for Beginners is True Too."  I have
been thinking about some of these issues of late
and you have done a great job of putting them in
words.

Daniel

>From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker)
>Subject: Theosophy for Beginners is True Too

Jerry S:

[writing to Richard Ihle]

>Americans are a lot smarter than 19th-century
>Hindu or Buddhists students, and demand a lot more than karma
>as reward-and-punishment. For myself, I loved it at first, then
>digested it, and then hungered for more, found it, and am now
>dissatisfied with the exoteric material in the TS literature.

You may be forgetting your own feeling of satisfaction and
opening vistas that the basic ideas gave you, when as a
beginner you first came to study them. Certainly you know
more now that you did then, and have passed on to deeper
understandings, but that's *you*, not everybody else.

For every person that may have studied the basic, most
simply view of the esoteric doctrines, there are perhaps
thousands that are starving for those simple, soul-healing
ideas.

For those with the good fortune to have studied the
teachings and benefited from them, they may have moved
yet deeper in their understanding of life. But that
"moving yet deeper" is in stages, and someone new to the
philosophy will get nowhere if they're offered the basic
teachings with one hand and hear them denounced, discredited,
and despised with the other. That would be giving a new
student a mixed message that would simply turn them away.

>I have no problem with defining Theosophy as a collection
>of core teachings and then list the headings.  Even giving
>out HPB's version is OK, providing it is acknowledged as
>exoteric (which it is)--I think that this is what Eldon has
>in mind when he talks about mining for gold, etc.

There's a problem when we say "Here's something to study,
but it's only *exoteric*, for beginners, watered-down
stuff, things I know to be untrue and to have personally
risen above, etc." That's certainly not respectful of the
Wisdom Tradition, and misses the point that the teachings
*are true*, but simply understood in simpler and more
basic models at first, and later understood with growing
sophistication and insight.

>But if we limit
>Theosophy to only HPB's versions then we are in trouble,
>because then the truth seeker will never get beyond the
>exoteric shell (and many may not anyway, but the fact that
>it is, after all, only an exoteric husk, should be given to
>all truth seekers however far they care to tread the Path).

There are a few flavors of the basic doctrines, and HPB's
is not the only one. But not all that passes as esoteric
wisdom is a genuine flavor of the Mysteries. There's more
fools gold than the real thing out in the world.

>The problem is that I often want to say things that she
>never discussed, and as Eldon, Jerry HE and others have
>suggested, her omissions are generally construed as
>negative opinions. In other words, if she doesn't mention it,
>it probably is not so. This is not the case *every* time, but
>too often for me.

The problem is not whether the idea is true or not, but
upon what basis do you present your ideas. We're all
entitled to present our views, whatever they are, if we
label them as such. If we want to suggest that a particular
idea we have is found in Theosophy, we can use direct
citations and a scholar approach to show the connection.
Or we can argue the idea from a philosophical standpoint
as being consistent, in accord with, and integral to what
is presented in Theosophy. Or yet again, we can simply
say "this is what I think".

I tend to take the second or third approach, partly because
I may be writing on my laptop at work, at the start of the
day, where reference books are not handy. Also, partly,
because I've seen how when someone does give quotes on
theos-l, the writer will find some people laugh in their
faces (and on occasion the bitterness of the reaction is
more akin to having someone spit in one's face). Hopefully
there'd be a few people, even on theos-l, who'd actually
want to study and talk about Theosophy, rather than simply
reject it out-of-hand and spend their time telling the
rest of us how clever they are in seeing how untrue it all
is!

-- Eldon

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 06:37:01 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:37:01 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630063701.006c3020@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

At 07:21 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>Then in the name of siblinghood they by all means should be
>exercized--er--exorcized.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>Chuck:

I still think "excised" is the best idea. When people like that join the
greater reality, I almost feel sorry for them, they are always sooooo
disappointed.....almost as disappointed as Christian's and Jews when they
find out their little religious fantasies just ain't necessarily so!
Notice I said "ALMOST FEEL SORRY FOR THEM", that doesn't mean I really
do.And then the fun begins!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 06:39:28 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:39:28 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630063928.006b95cc@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Bee

At 07:22 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex
>the Knesset is great fun to watch.  I have always been a fan of boxing.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>They do get physical at times, they also get very red in the face.
Parliament can also be a very good show, I love it when they start rustling
their papers and yelling "shame" "shame"!

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 06:48:11 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 23:48:11 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630064811.006cc834@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy

At 07:22 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I've been having some trouble getting through to the local server, so I
>haven't seen it for a few days.  Let me know what's happening.
>
>Chuck
>
>Chuck: As of yesterday, there were 14 messages "on board". I tried to send
a message but it was neither returned nor received (via that alt> news
group) It was to Ozren Skondrik who is so interested in the fact that
Blavatsky was a meat eater. He sent a reply to you (did you see it) saying
that Orpheus, and Buddha, and Plato, and Pitagoras (sic) and Krishna were
all vegetarians. So I told him that Orpheus never lived, so he couldn't be a
vegetarian, that Buddha died from eating spoiled pork, that Plato and his
mentor Socrates were neither of them members of Pythagoras' Sodality and
both of them ate meat, and that the only one on his list who WAS a
vegetarian was Pythagoras, and as to Krishna, he was a "God" ergo didn't eat
al all!

As to alt. theosophy I'm worried if it doesn't get its plague of
technicalities settled soon, people will just give up on it altogether.
Monday I'm going to call tech support at slip.net and complain again.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:10:46 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:10:46 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630071046.006c7b48@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists

At 08:50 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Another thing is that I regard indifference in attitude regarding
>> this matter of labeling as a very serious flaw.
>	Martin, what you you mean here?  How
>do you know that the "indifference" isn't tacit agreement?
>
>> We have to seperate between fundamentalistic ways of
>>approaching teachings and the teachings themselves
>	What are "fundamentalistic ways of approaching
>teachings?" Do you mean believing in them as gospel truth?
>I think that each theosophist has to decide for themself
>what is true and what is false.  To say that they are all true,
>or to say that none of them are true, are the two possible
>extreme views.  The truth, as is often the case, lies in the
>middle.  How do we separate the true from the false?  By
>individual experience.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>Jerry: I really have to "jump" in here. Over the past many weeks Martin and
I have been exploring a thread based upon his reactions to my "Ruminations"
(a published essay obtainable on request + $3.00 from Alan Bain). Martin
strongly disagree with much that I say and we have been discussing it for
some time now. Lately the thread has switched to "Process theosophy" and my
beliefs pertaining to it. What I didn't know (as you know I'm a neophyte
computer user) was that our discussion thread has been private. Therefore
you folks on the list have been unable (I think) to share our discussions.
Now Martin publically complains bitterly that no one will give him their
reasons for believing in "process theosophy", but that is entirely untrue, I
have spent hours and hours patiently detailing all of my own rationale for
my beliefs, he either ignores them, or cannot comprehend them (my
suspicion). And then publically complains I am not responding. As I see it
Martin is disengenuous, dissembling (For instance: he claims to be a
physicist and a psychologist but all he has is a Baccalaureate),He responds
to me privately and publically complains I do not "give details and reasons"
and I think he's downright dishonest for doing this. Now he is mounting an
utterly invalid personal attack on me for so-called  "labeling", this is
unacceptable! It is certainly utterly disingenuous! I have merely pointed
out, as others have before me that from reading the messages to this list
one concludes that some people see theosophy as a process and other treat it
religiously as a "Core Doctrine". One of those who treat it as "revealed
truth" is clearly Martin Euler, who clearly believes Gottfried de Peruker
walked on water! I, of course, don't believe ANYONE ever "walked on water"
primarily because I can see no valid reason why one who could...would!

alexis
>

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:17:51 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:17:51 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630071751.0067a224@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Process Theosophists?  A Comment to Martin

At 10:33 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Martin writes:
>
>>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>>>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>>>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>>>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>>>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>>>Arguments and alternatives, please !
>
>Daniel comments:
>
>Martin, I agree with you.  I really don't know what the reasoning and thinking
>is behind the mere statements made by these "process theosophists."  I would
>really love to understand their point of view;  I might learn something!  But
>with the possible exception of Jerry S, I have heard very little in
>explanation from
>any other process theosophist.
>
>
>Daniel:

I have very carefully spent hours of my time responding fully, and in
detail, to Martin, and he has carefully kept those threads private so no one
but him has read my answers. I also provided great detail to a person named
Christopher Allen but they too may have been private. In any case you know,
of course, that it's impossible to give citations from Chairman de Peruker
on a subject about which he was silent. "Process theosophy" is certainly
nothing I "invented", but it is something I have espoused, if my thoughts
and rationales on the subject are unacceptable, then the subject is
unacceptable to you as it cannot be "backed up" by quotations from the dead.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:19:56 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:19:56 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630071956.006cd174@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Alexis on Dr. Elliot Coues

At 10:37 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis writes:
>
>>Alan and Chuck: We are dealing with two different "Coues", the one WQJ was
>so excercised about was Dr. Elliot Coues, who was one of the original group
>that established the Theosophical society in 1875 but who, for personal
>reasons (Primarily thwarted ambitions), became a very great enemy of the
>society (lawsuits etc,). Emile Coues, the Frenchman, was the one who did
>"day by day, I am getting better and better".
>
>
>You are half way right, Alexis.  BUT, as far as I know,  Elliot Coues was NOT
> involved in the founding of the T.S. in 1875.  I believe that Dr. Coues
>first met
> HPB and Olcott in Europe in the summer of 1884.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>That'll take about 30 minutes to check. I will do so and let you know
exactly what the story was.

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:28:48 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:28:48 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630072848.006c83a4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Coue

At 10:38 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960629064909.006deb58@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>Emile Coues, the Frenchman, was the one who did
>>"day by day, I am getting better and better".
>
>Yes, but 'tis Coue with an accent over the "e".
>
>Alan, of real "lower class" origins.
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan: Precisely how does one make an acute accent on a P.C.?

As to your other little editorial comment, I don't hold it against you, but
I see no reason to brag about it. England would be a lot healthier nation if
it weren't so inextricably enmeshed in "class warfare" Marx probably got his
notions because he lived in England (and of course, both Marx and Engles had
no contact with the lower classes other than to hand them their hats and
coats). Alan, when you have spent as much time "in the streets" and "on the
barricades" as I have, actively working for the betterment of the lower
classes and other disenfranchised folks, then, and only then, will you be
eligible to engage in subtle little digs. I still love you dearly, and
respect you greatly, but I think you really need to "get over it".

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:42:49 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:42:49 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630074249.006cf140@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Down and dirty

At 10:47 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960628195741.006dfbb0@pop.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii  writes
>>You will notice it outrages all
>>foreigners, Kim, Martin, Bjorn, even Alan, they just don't understand our
>>"frontier mentality"...Americans get 'down and dirty"
>
>.. and that is a good thing???
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan: It is neither a "good thing" or a "bad thing" it is just the nature
of the beast. To deal with any group that is preponderently American, one
must always recall that Americans are not anything else BUT Americans. Just
carefully observe an American Presidential election (Going all the way back
to that of John Adams). Americans, unfortunately, didn't have the good taste
to be born in Europe so we're all just vulgar, commercial, battling cowboys.
The world is, as it is, and not as we wish it to be.

alexei

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 07:54:46 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 00:54:46 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630075446.006d34d8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Mahatma Letters

At 11:02 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Daniel comments:
>
>Having studied the Mahatma Letters for about 25 years, I find myself
>totally disagreeing with these statements by Alexis.  As usual, he
>gives no detailed, concrete examples to illustrate his
>ipse dixit statements.
>Could it be that such statements by Alexis
>are  "lacking in real content" and, therefore, as  "irrelevant" as
>The Mahatma Letters?
>
>Daniel
>
>Oh here we go again...The Blavatsky foundation creeps out from under it's
rock to snipe!

Daniel, posting messages to this list was intended to be a kind of
relaxation for me from my other activities, that's all it was, or is, or
ever will be. I have been reading this stuff, i.e. "The Mahatma Letters etc.
since I first discovered it, and I assume you have too. You say one thing
about it, and I assume that's what you got out of them. I say the opposite
thing, but you don't give me the credit I give you.
I think "throwing quotes" at one another is rather childish. You certainly
have a right to your opinions, but you certainly don't grant me that same
right.....your comments up above are disengenuous if nothing worse. Believe
me Daniel, if I chose to spend my time is such a futile endeavour I could
give you all the quotes and citations any one would require that would prove
my point completely. BUT, you would find some new cavil, and say I hadn't
responded. so why bother? I really do have a living to earn you know. Don't you?

alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>
>

From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 29 01:22:42 1996
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:22:42 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Life on Mars
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message , "Dr. A.M.Bain"
 writes
>Leadbeater lied about his age, causing many of his followers to
>attribute to him a vitality associated with "Occult Adepts,"
>when in fact he pretended to be seven years older than he
>actually was.  Prior to Tillet's reproduction of his birth
>certificate, sources give his birthdate as 17 February 1847.
>
>[Adapted from my "Bishops Irregular" 1985, Bristol, England].
>
>(A.M.Bain)
>
>He was, at one time, expelled from the Adyar based Theosophical
>Society

Correction: he resigned following an official enquiry headed by Colonel
Olcott.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From euser@euronet.nl Sun Jun 30 11:39:25 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:39:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser)
Message-Id: <199606301139.NAA02318@mail.euronet.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Rounding off of discussions; Alexis; Jerry S.;JRC

Hi,


I have to do some rounding off business regarding some replies from
Alexis and Jerry S. before I have my holiday break.


Alexis first.

Alexis: I saw your posting this morning and was amazed about your anger.
Apparently there's something not going well in our communication.
That's a pity, because I was (and am) very interested in your view
of things. That does not mean that I have to accept  your complete
view as valid  of course, it could be however that certain points you make
make me consider some Theosophical teachings more carefully.
As an example I'll give the theory of races/rootraces. Up to some weeks
ago I would not be too critical of G de P's theory of races, I considered
it as a theory of consciousness which he also applied on the black race,
Chinese people, etc. The point you raised about it made me think about
it again and I see how that inevitably leads to racistic attitudes, if one
blindly equates rootraces with the current races. So, in this respect
I've actually learnt something from you. I have always carefully avoided,
however, to promulgate any teachings on races/rootraces because it is
explosive stuff anyway. You acted as a catalyst, so to speak, to review
this matter in a more critical way.

Your views on karma and justice interest me strongly, because it's not
always easy to understand how these things work and any elaboration
upon the theme is worthwile to ponder about.
I realize now, however, that I may have asked too much from you.
It is not possible I think to either prove or refute the teachings about
karma. That is something we can only do in our own daily life experience.
It is plausible to me that 'we reap what we sow', but 100% proof cannot
be given by way of argument. Neither can you refute it by way of logic.
Only experience can do that (and I think only if one has developed
the budhic faculty to a large degree).

Where does this leave us? Basically we are left to our own experience
and understanding of life's intricate processes. Theosophical teachings
can be helpful for us and others as a framework, a set of hypotheses
and consequent teachings or maybe sometimes non-consequent teachings,
as the case may be, to ponder about and apply in daily life.
Well, many people have benefitted from this exercise and I see no problem
at all in that.

My disturbance has been mainly with the division 'core'-theosophists
vs. 'process'-theosophists because you have at least implicitly equated
'core'-theosophists with dogmatic believers and the other category
as 'experientalists'. You said to Eldon that he was 'preaching the
party-line', implying that you didn't take his point of view seriously.
You have *your* experiences and view of things, Eldon has other ones, I may
have yet another view, and so may others. That's nothing to be mad about.

It would be nice if we could discuss that peacefully on this list, however
you have to realize that I or any other one may plainly disagree with you
and dismiss your notions as irrelevant in our perception of things.
It's not different from what you do regarding Theosophical teachings.

IOW I think you carried this division too far in equating people who
think or believe that core-teachings contain a lot of truth with
dogmatists. This is too simplistic. It doesn't work that way and, yes,
I call this: labeling people in too divisive a way. You actually offend
people by calling them dogmatists and you don't care about that.
My conclusion has to be that you don't care to really listen to people
who strongly  disagree with you, while those people may be just the ones
from whom you can actually learn some new perspective on the old teachings.
The evidence is clear: I strongly disagree with you implying people to be
dogmatists and see what happens: you get angered instead of asking me
what's the matter. You could have been friendly and empathic, but no
you are wildly slapping around you. That proves my conclusion sufficiently.
You belittled Daniel and now you start accusing me of all kinds of things.
I have no need of self-defense. The above is only an explanation
and description of how I see the whole communicative process between
you and me and some other listmembers.

There's only one thing which I may have carried to the extreme and that
is consistently asking for strong arguments, while I now realize that
it may not be possible at all to do so. Giving one's point of view, however,
does not count as an argument. It's just a point of view. That's all,
unless you can show that it far better explains natural processes,
human interactions, etc. That would be a matter of serious scrutiny
and analysis indeed. Maybe you have to offer such a view, that's entirely
possible, but as yet I've not seen such a convincing explanation of things
which is consistent with my experiences and/or satisfies my sense of logic,
etc,etc. The deep-rooted motive in my case is to offer something helpful
and valuable to people who may need it sorely. So, I cannot just
accept the dismissal of theosophical teachings as irrelevant without
being offered a very good alternative. Discussion and analysis would
be still necessary of course. I would not throw the baby out with the bath
water. Do you see now where I stand. It has nothing to do with you
personally but everything with my perceived duty to the public.



Rest me to deal with some old posts:
I'll do it from memory because I'm busy.

Regarding this race-theory of G. de P.
Well, I've said before that I regard this as speculation and
totally counterproductive. The root-race theory is a theory
of evolving aspects of consciousness, but has been applied
to races and that's just not my idea of it.


HPB about priests being all black-magicians: you know better than
taking HPB's statements literally. She was famous for her exaggerations.
She had a couple of Jesuits who tried to thwart her work, so what
do you expect..

You asked 'what articles'. Well, I 've written more than about
the seven jewels alone. You can find them at: www.spiritweb.org
in the Theosophy section.


About Mahatma letters: I asked you to give an example regarding
where there are contradictions. You plainly refuse to do so,
thereby again confirming my perception that you lack arguments
or it may be that you don't find it important enough to do
(which shows again a lack in taking the other seriously, because you
mention that there are contradictions but do nothing to show it despite
my asking for evidence)
I've studied these letters too, and saw no contradictions
that could not be easily resolved.



About physical/non-physical: I already told you that I don't believe
in absolute divisions. All is substance with active or latent intelligence
as the case may be and nature works along analogous lines,so my application
of cycles to the physical plane is warranted. So I dismiss your notion
as irrelevant.

Something about a degree: Alexis, I've told you already that I have
a master's degree in psychology and a bachelor's degree in physics.
I don't get it. What are you complaining about?


Something about me drawing a 'smoke-screen': I do smoke, Alexis, but
smoke-screens, no, I just don't like them.
On a serious note I'd say that you don't know me at all, so attributing
motives to me is a very questionable practice. Also, I noticed that you
take my statements entirely at face value instead of trying to understand
what I'm trying to say. In some way you twist the intended meaning of
my messages and are trying to push me into the defense.
That's not an effective way of communication and it is not fair either.
You've chased many people away, *including*  Americans
who were totally fed up with you.
Is there a ground for communication with you? I doubt it very much,
given the type of reaction you display. You seem to operate from the premise
that you must 'win' a discussion, I'm not sure what your idea about
effective communication is. This is a forum for peaceful discussion, not
for debates.
I feel that you don't understand me at all and, frankly speaking,
 I don't feel that you respect me.
So, I will leave it at that and I think it wise for the moment to stop
all discussions between us.


Jerry:

About guilt and remorse: of course these are very real to people who
feel this. But if these feelings are nursed too long ('me poor sinner syndrome')
than they become an obstacle for spiritual progress.
In that sense they are pseudo-realities: you can't change things you've
done back to what it was before. You better live in the here and now
and try to do things better.

Causal body being on the buddhic plane: as far as I understand it, yes.

About the 7 jewels being translated: I used the wrong word, based on
a Dutch equivalent for 'converting' [in a suitable form in applying the
jewels to the different spheres of being]. Otherwise, your remark
holds true too of course.


JRC: you're probably right about people being very busy with other lists and
following only some threads. Nevertheless, the equating of 'core' theosophists
with dogmatists has been going on for a long time on this list and I wondered
why so little people took exception at that. It sure made me angry and
wondering if people were  indifferent to this happening on this list or what.
That's my character, John. Thanks for your response anyway.


Martin

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:04:53 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:04:53 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630120452_424710493@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy

Doss,
I know.  They need more lines.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:07:11 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:07:11 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630120710_424710854@emout19.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Coue

Alan and Alex,
Thanks for the correction.  My source was a little book on self-hypnosis
published years ago and the author must have made the boo-boo.

Chuck
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:06:01 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:06:01 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630120600_424710863@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Down and dirty

Alan,
We sort of think it is.  When you have a society like ours which has as its
fundamental operating priniciple that everyone is on an equal footing, it is
very difficult to dance around things, so we just say what is on our minds
and let the bombs fall where they may.  It helps us live longer, and we don't
get ulcers.
Also, you have to remember that the reaction against respectability may be a
purely American phenomenon in the extent that it has spread through most of
the educated part of society. (Alex will probably argue with me on the
extent, but that is my experience)  The result is that we have developed a
very complicated social structure, with tons of hidden stratifications and no
real way to deal with them that people feel comfortable with, so in reaction,
we refuse to worry about it.
It probably drives the rest of you nuts, but we mean well.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:06:53 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:06:53 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630120652_424710875@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Mahatma Letters

I'm going to have to my computer into a fallout shelter if this keeps up.

Chuck the Heretic
From RIhle@aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:33:23 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:33:23 -0400
From: RIhle@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630123322_228115489@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rounding off of discussions

>Martin writes>
>My disturbance has been mainly with the division 'core'-theosophists
>vs. 'process'-theosophists because you have at least implicitly equated
>'core'-theosophists with dogmatic believers and the other category
>as 'experientalists'.

Richard Ihle writes>
Martin, first let me say that I think you have been doing a fine job with
your writings on theos-l.  I have not jumped into the "process-theosophy"
discussion because, as often seems to be the case, I occupy some murky middle
ground which can easily attract enemies from either side.

My basic view is that the "core teachings" are important ~precisely because~
they are a product of theosophy--"knowledge which is derived, at least
originally, by means of transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or
higher perception."  Some subjects cannot be approached in any other way.
 Your "Seven Jewels" piece is as good a summary of these subjects as I have
ever seen--nice work.

So, we have identified some traditional theosophical subjects, and we have
also identified some reputed theosophical knowledge about these subjects--the
core teachings, or at least HPB's version of the core teachings.

Things could perhaps proceed more easily from this point were they not
clouded by a little "side issue":  the circumstance that the core teachings
have been allowed to become known as ~Theosophy~.  They could be called "The
Principal Theosophical Teachings," "The Theosophical Philosophy," or
something else; however, the "core people" and others continue to refer to
specific doctrine as ~Theosophy~ and are seemingly not over-concerned with
the lexical confusion this creates with the universal (Theo-Sophia) and the
name of the organization/movement.

And those are just the little problems.  The big problem is that by making
~T/theosophy~ a synonym for selected doctrine, it diminishes or erases its
utility as an epistemological term.  First and foremost, ~theosophy~ should
be known as a philosophic word which refers to the valid category of
knowledge which (again) "derives, at least originally, by means of
transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception."

Without this initial recognition of theosophy as a possibly valid
epistemology, the entirety of THE SECRET DOCTRINE could easily be dismissed
as mere speculation--after all, the knowledge contained within it was not
produced by HPB or her "Masters" staying up all night doing material-science
projects.

Yes, theosophy in the epistemological sense definitely involves a "process,"
but this, I believe, is more a general process of personal transformation
proceeding pari passu with improving Self-awareness rather than something
which comes from specific experimentation with its possible ancillary
fruits--psychic, magical, etc. abilities.  Direct apprehension of the truth
is the result of the  theosophical process.  Clear seeing is the result of
the theosophical process.  Ineffable Buddhic certainty is the result of the
theosophical process.

Are the people who talk the most about process-theosophy necessarily the
furthest along in the process?  Are the most admirable scholars of the core
teachings in actual personal possession of very much theosophical knowledge
whatever?

Just a couple of things ~not~ to think about on holiday, Martin. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle


From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 19:17:55 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:17:55 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630191755.006713d8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Life on Mars

At 05:59 AM 6/30/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message , "Dr. A.M.Bain"
> writes
>>Leadbeater lied about his age, causing many of his followers to
>>attribute to him a vitality associated with "Occult Adepts,"
>>when in fact he pretended to be seven years older than he
>>actually was.  Prior to Tillet's reproduction of his birth
>>certificate, sources give his birthdate as 17 February 1847.
>>
>>[Adapted from my "Bishops Irregular" 1985, Bristol, England].
>>
>>(A.M.Bain)
>>
>>He was, at one time, expelled from the Adyar based Theosophical
>>Society
>
>Correction: he resigned following an official enquiry headed by Colonel
>Olcott.
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>I have a question: In the end result, or product, how does a "forced
resignation" differ from an "expulsion"? I realize that a "forced
resignation" usually is done to prevent an "expulsion" but basically there's
only a semantic difference.The result is the same and the motivation is
usually to "save face" on either or both "sides". If it hadn't been for Mrs.
Besant's need to "save face" he probably would have been expelled with no
prospect of re-call. But he should have been jailed.  Nowadays, what's
called "improper touching" get's the "toucher" twenty years!

alexis

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 20:27:06 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:27:06 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630202706.006d9f6c@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Rounding off of discussions; Alexis; Jerry S.;JRC

At 07:40 AM 6/30/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Alexis first.
>
>Alexis: I saw your posting this morning and was amazed about your anger.
>Apparently there's something not going well in our communication.

That is certainly true!

>That's a pity, because I was (and am) very interested in your view
>of things. That does not mean that I have to accept  your complete
>view as valid  of course, it could be however that certain points you make
>make me consider some Theosophical teachings more carefully.
>As an example I'll give the theory of races/rootraces. Up to some weeks
>ago I would not be too critical of G de P's theory of races, I considered
>it as a theory of consciousness which he also applied on the black race,
>Chinese people, etc. The point you raised about it made me think about
>it again and I see how that inevitably leads to racistic attitudes, if one
>blindly equates rootraces with the current races. So, in this respect
>I've actually learnt something from you. I have always carefully avoided,
>however, to promulgate any teachings on races/rootraces because it is
>explosive stuff anyway. You acted as a catalyst, so to speak, to review
>this matter in a more critical way.
>
>Your views on karma and justice interest me strongly, because it's not
>always easy to understand how these things work and any elaboration
>upon the theme is worthwile to ponder about.

If, perhaps, you had ever expressed such feeling before Martin, I would
probably not felt so totally frustrated, by what I perceived as absolutely
no results from hours of typing and thinking. I felt that I had run up
against a stone wall and that what I was saying was being totally rejected
if not ignored completely.

>I realize now, however, that I may have asked too much from you.

I think you did, we are discussing intangibles, a subject to which only
opinion and perception is applicable and yet you seemed to be insisting I
give pragmatic, non-theoretical "proofs" of my statements. This was clearly
impossible to do, and I was becoming more and more frustrated as each day
passed. I view theosophy as speculative hypothesis and as you must know it
is impossible to provide proof of such things. Now ask me about Theosophy
and the Nazis and I'll give you all the pragmatic proofs you want. Ask me
about the history of World War II and you'll get all the factual material
that exists, but when it comes to speculations that is impossible to do.

>It is not possible I think to either prove or refute the teachings about
>karma. That is something we can only do in our own daily life experience.
>It is plausible to me that 'we reap what we sow', but 100% proof cannot
>be given by way of argument. Neither can you refute it by way of logic.
>Only experience can do that (and I think only if one has developed
>the budhic faculty to a large degree).

And fundamentalist christians claim that their life experience proves to
them that Jesus's "hand is on them", life experience can be made to prove
whatever we are predisposed to make it prove. That doesn't make the "proof"
valid. If one want's to believe that "we reap what we sow" then one can find
ample proof of it in daily life. Now, I do believe we actually do "reap what
we so" but it is, as far as I see it, only in our present life. Being born
blind of otherwise disabled may have many causes, medical, genetic, and
perhaps environmental, but it certainly cannot be as a result of what
someone else did. That to me, would be mindlessly unjust. It would make the
"Divine mind" far less just than the Human Mind. This is especially true if
one has my own view of what I think is wrongly called "reincarnation" but
which is better described as "metempsychosis" and which has nothing to do
with specific personalities. As to the "Buddhic Faculty" that too is
entirely speculative hypothesis and it's only pragmatic result is to send
people off on vast ego trips.
>
>Where does this leave us? Basically we are left to our own experience
>and understanding of life's intricate processes. Theosophical teachings
>can be helpful for us and others as a framework, a set of hypotheses
>and consequent teachings or maybe sometimes non-consequent teachings,
>as the case may be, to ponder about and apply in daily life.
>Well, many people have benefitted from this exercise and I see no problem
>at all in that.

Nor do I, it's when they STOP being hypothesis and are presented as
"received truth" that I call halt. That is the major disagreement between
us. I strongly believe that this has now occurred within the Theosophical
Society in which people like John Algeo are presenting theosophical
hypotheses as "received truth", true, they may only call  it "Core
Doctrines"but their true attitude is clearly displayed in the current issue
of "The American Theosophist" where in an article by Bill Delahunt we are
asked if "you are not open to a study or consideration of Theosophical
Teachings why do you want to be part of a Society whose mission is to teach
and promote such ideas". It sounds reasonable, but is not reasonable to
those of us who believe the society has no teachings but only speculative
hypotheses and theories which it makes available for reasoned
considerations. When we begin to use phrases like "a Society whose MISSION
is to teach and promote" well frankly we have gone from hypothesis to
religion. In the same issue , a man named Fred Ayers writes an article in
which he exchanges the "Three Objects" for "three Fundamental Propositions"
his entire approach is religious, and at last he makes the statement: "As
long as there are individuals unprepared to move on to maturity
(completeness, perfection) there will be individuals seeking to disprove the
Universal Laws" This too is a religious approach. Without those
adventuresome individuals who seek to disprove "Universal Laws" there would
be no human progress.
>
>My disturbance has been mainly with the division 'core'-theosophists
>vs. 'process'-theosophists because you have at least implicitly equated
>'core'-theosophists with dogmatic believers and the other category
>as 'experientalists'. You said to Eldon that he was 'preaching the
>party-line', implying that you didn't take his point of view seriously.

Wrong, I take "The Party Line" very seriously indeed, I think it harmful. I
think it dead wrong, and lastly; I am certain it will destroy
theosophy! I think "The Party Line" is both religious-devotional and so
terribly "Ivory Tower Intellectual" that it renders theosophy totally
inaccessible to intelligent people.

>You have *your* experiences and view of things, Eldon has other ones, I may
>have yet another view, and so may others. That's nothing to be mad about.

Of course that's NOT what I am "mad" about, and I think you are well aware
that it isn't, and that's what I AM "mad" about.
>
>It would be nice if we could discuss that peacefully on this list, however
>you have to realize that I or any other one may plainly disagree with you
>and dismiss your notions as irrelevant in our perception of things.
>It's not different from what you do regarding Theosophical teachings.

I never get angry a people who disagree with me, but I do get angry when I
spend hours of time and energy responding to questions and am greeted with a
complaint that "Alexis has given not response". That means to me that not
only are you dismissing my presentations as irrelevant, which is fine by me,
but that you are dismissing them as non-existent which is NOT "fine by be".
Can you see the difference. It's perfectly all right to say "I read Alexis's
response and it's pure bull-shit"...O.K. I can live with that, and even try
to explain why I think it isn't. But when you say "Alexis hasn't responded"
that is either disingenuous or flat out untruth, and THAT makes me mad.
>
>IOW I think you carried this division too far in equating people who
>think or believe that core-teachings contain a lot of truth with
>dogmatists. This is too simplistic. It doesn't work that way and, yes,
>I call this: labeling people in too divisive a way. You actually offend
>people by calling them dogmatists and you don't care about that.

Maybe things are different in Europe, but in the america of John Algeo's
theosophy it is not stretching the point to cause his Jesuitical approach to
theosophy dogmatical. Why don't you write to Olcott (th Hq of the TSA) and
buy a subscription to the American Theosophist, and you'll see why my
"division" is accurate. The 200 members of the Esoteric Section have assumed
full control over the fate and future of the American society and they ARE
dogmatists. Martin, most of my complaints deal with the Adyar based Society,
which of course includes the TSA. You are a Point Loma Theosophist, it's not
the same thing at all.....the remnants of the Point Loma Society are, in my
view, the best of the contemporary theosophical groups. BUT, they are far
too few to be really an important force for anything. I also happen to
believe that Gottfried de Peruker was, in spite of his very much  more
sophisticated presentation, a dogmatist. In fact I feel it appropriate to
call anyone a "dogmatist" who says (of anything) THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
In metaphysical philosophy we deal ONLY in hypotheses and speculation. To
call it more than that is sheer hubris.

>My conclusion has to be that you don't care to really listen to people
>who strongly  disagree with you, while those people may be just the ones
>from whom you can actually learn some new perspective on the old teachings.
>The evidence is clear: I strongly disagree with you implying people to be
>dogmatists and see what happens: you get angered instead of asking me
>what's the matter. You could have been friendly and empathic, but no
>you are wildly slapping around you. That proves my conclusion sufficiently.

Martin, what you just said is, in my view, entirely untrue. I am perfectly
capable of dealing with those who disagree with me strongly. I am utterly
incapable of dealing with people who say I haven't said anything. You are
also telling an untruth when you say I don't listen to what you say. What
you don't like is that I disagree with what you say, and how you say it, so
very adamantly! I am not wildly "slapping about me" I am very carefully
"slapping about me" and the slaps have obviously fallen as intended. you did
not "disagree with me" for my suggestion that there are "Process
theosophists" and "Doctrinaire Theosophists", no not at all, you criticized
me very strongly for that belief. Haven't you learned the difference yet? It
is my strong feeling that you are disingenuous and dissembling, that is
based upon my experiences with you. You apparently feel that I am unfriendly
and over-angry for no reason. Well, I disagree, and believe me Martin,
saying: "That proves my point sufficiently" doesn't accomplish that feat at
all, it's just a sophistical debating technique.

>You belittled Daniel and now you start accusing me of all kinds of things.
>I have no need of self-defense. The above is only an explanation
>and description of how I see the whole communicative process between
>you and me and some other listmembers.

My relationship with Daniel is "old hat" and is actually none of your business.
>
>There's only one thing which I may have carried to the extreme and that
>is consistently asking for strong arguments, while I now realize that
>it may not be possible at all to do so. Giving one's point of view, however,
>does not count as an argument. It's just a point of view. That's all,
>unless you can show that it far better explains natural processes,
>human interactions, etc. That would be a matter of serious scrutiny
>and analysis indeed. Maybe you have to offer such a view, that's entirely
>possible, but as yet I've not seen such a convincing explanation of things
>which is consistent with my experiences and/or satisfies my sense of logic,
>etc,etc. The deep-rooted motive in my case is to offer something helpful
>and valuable to people who may need it sorely. So, I cannot just
>accept the dismissal of theosophical teachings as irrelevant without
>being offered a very good alternative. Discussion and analysis would
>be still necessary of course. I would not throw the baby out with the bath
>water. Do you see now where I stand. It has nothing to do with you
>personally but everything with my perceived duty to the public.

People who have "perceived DUTIES" make me really nervous Martin, for so too
did Torquemada! Now, all any argument is, is a presentation of points of
view UNLESS one is dealing with a "hard science" or with historical facts,
there are only points-of-view and opinions. You say that Core Theosophy
agrees with your "sense of logic" well, sorry , but it offends my sense of
logic. Essentially I see absolutely no difference between what you call
"Core Doctrines" and Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, and that's definitely a
religion and so my description of it as a religion is hardly far-fetched. It
is my feeling however, that if I spent a year writing an exposition of my
beliefs and the ground for those beliefs, and sent it to you, you would
reject it out of hand. When someone says "my duty to the public" there's
just too great a probability that they're on an ego trip, and that makes
rational communication with them almost impossible. As regards twentieth
century theosophy, it might be the best possible option to "throw the baby
out with the bath water!" You will permit me the right to think so, won't
you? And on that point i'll end this.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 20:33:47 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:33:47 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630203347.006ca624@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Down and dirty

At 12:10 PM 6/30/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alan,
>We sort of think it is.  When you have a society like ours which has as its
>fundamental operating priniciple that everyone is on an equal footing, it is
>very difficult to dance around things, so we just say what is on our minds
>and let the bombs fall where they may.  It helps us live longer, and we don't
>get ulcers.
>Also, you have to remember that the reaction against respectability may be a
>purely American phenomenon in the extent that it has spread through most of
>the educated part of society. (Alex will probably argue with me on the
>extent, but that is my experience)  The result is that we have developed a
>very complicated social structure, with tons of hidden stratifications and no
>real way to deal with them that people feel comfortable with, so in reaction,
>we refuse to worry about it.
>It probably drives the rest of you nuts, but we mean well.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>No I don't disagree with you at all. Long ago, when living in Europe I
learned that for many complicated reasons, it is almost impossible for
Europeans to deal with American's, and that is why, subconsciously or
consciously, as the case may be, they dislike us so very much. One of the
paradoxes which always amazed me is that the Germans resent us less for
beating them, than the other Europeans do for saving them. What most
Europeans really resent is the visceral knowledge that most people became
Americans because they hated where ever it was they came from.

alex

From alexei@slip.net Sun Jun 30 20:34:55 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:34:55 -0700
From: alexis dolgorukii 
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960630203455.006d0514@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: The Mahatma Letters

At 12:11 PM 6/30/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm going to have to my computer into a fallout shelter if this keeps up.
>
>Chuck the Heretic
>
>You better..... old Huitzilicoatl on the war path!

alex

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 30 22:35:09 1996
Date: 30 Jun 96 18:35:09 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Martin vs. Process Theosophists
Message-Id: <960630223509_76400.1474_HHL64-1@CompuServe.COM>

Alexis:
> ...Therefore you folks on the list have been unable (I think) to share our
>discussions.
	Oh.  OK.

>Now Martin publically complains bitterly that no one will give him their
>reasons for believing in "process theosophy", but that is entirely untrue, I
have spent hours and hours patiently detailing all of my own rationale for
my beliefs, he either ignores them, or cannot comprehend them (my
suspicion).
	Even having missed many of your private postings, I have
seen enough on theos-l to know where you are coming from.  Also,
JRC and Paul have added their perspectives.  I don't understand
what Martin's or Dan's problem is.  Richard I. says that he falls
somewhere in between the two (he is, BTW, Mr. Theosopher).  I
may be in there somewhere too, because I like the "core teachings."
But I do prefer to take them eclectically rather than swallowed whole.

> I have merely pointed
>out, as others have before me that from reading the messages to
>this list one concludes that some people see theosophy as a process
> and other treat it religiously as a "Core Doctrine".
	This was certainly true awhile back.  I think most of the "core
doctrine" folks have abandoned ship by now.  This is unfortunate, but
inevitable.  There is a sense of security in having a core doctrine, and
in thinking that one is looking at the moon instead of just a pointing
finger.  It is comforting to share the same ideas with others--this is
the cement that holds churches together.   Theos-l is no longer a secure
or comfortable place for those who take the core teachings as gospel.
They really only have three options:  (1)  discuss or debate, (2) change
their own worldview, or (3) leave.  After attempting the first option for
awhile, most opt for the third which is far easier than the second.
But their own experiences, sooner or later, will bring them to question
one or more of the core teachings, and personal experience is much
stronger than our postings here can ever be.  We can quit theos-l
but we cannot run away from our experiences, at least not when they
are "numinous" in the Jungian sense.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Jun 30 22:35:14 1996
Date: 30 Jun 96 18:35:14 EDT
From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Rounding off of discussions
Message-Id: <960630223514_76400.1474_HHL64-2@CompuServe.COM>

RI:
>Yes, theosophy in the epistemological sense definitely involves a "process,"
>but this, I believe, is more a general process of personal transformation
>proceeding pari passu with improving Self-awareness rather than something
>which comes from specific experimentation with its possible ancillary
>fruits--psychic, magical, etc. abilities.  Direct apprehension of the truth
>is the result of the  theosophical process.  Clear seeing is the result of
>the theosophical process.  Ineffable Buddhic certainty is the result of the
>theosophical process.

	Richard, I don't disagree with anything you have said, but
I do have a question.  What happens when "improving Self-awareness"
results in the awareness that "psychic, magical, etc. abilites" are inherent
within our higher Self?  What if "Self-awareness" and "abilites" are
the same thing?  I understand, of course, that there is a difference
between awareness and use.  Should we, perhaps, ignore the connection,
once made, as Eldon suggests?

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:24:39 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:24:39 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630192438_344616269@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activities of Theosophists/TS in Early Days

Alex,
I dunno.  I think the sight of John Algeo doing push-ups with his large belly
in the way would be priceless.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:24:14 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:24:14 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630192413_344616843@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Bee

Alex,
And the British Parliament (duck, here comes Alan) can be almost as raucous.
 Every year C-Span covers the opening ceremonies and I love the moment when
they ceremonially slam the door in the Queen's face and they have to pound on
it to get Parliament to open up again.
Of course, if you listen to her speech then, you realize why they don't want
to let her in.  The poor dear is as boring as Radha.

Chuck the Heretic
From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:25:40 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:25:40 -0400
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630192539_344616952@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Activity on alt.theosophy

Alex,
No, I haven't been able to see a damned thing on it.  And if I try to get to
it through the web I get a general protection fault on that particular page.

Chuck
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 19:54:49 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 20:54:49 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: <2v9tIHAJut1xEwB8@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Process Theosophists?  A Comment to Martin
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960630071751.0067a224@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960630071751.0067a224@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>"Process theosophy" is certainly
>nothing I "invented",

I'll try again - surely *all* theosophy is "process theosophy" - ??
Seems to me that a term has been invented here (like "politically
correct) in order to argue cases which need no argument ... ?

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 Jun 30 19:08:34 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 20:08:34 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Down and dirty
In-Reply-To: <960630120600_424710863@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

Most of the subscribers to the theos-lists seem to be Americans - may I
ask them, politely of course :-) if they agree with your assessment
below (Alex excepted, as we already know he does).

Alan

In message <960630120600_424710863@emout07.mail.aol.com>,
Drpsionic@aol.com writes
>Alan,
>We sort of think it is.  When you have a society like ours which has as its
>fundamental operating priniciple that everyone is on an equal footing, it is
>very difficult to dance around things, so we just say what is on our minds
>and let the bombs fall where they may.  It helps us live longer, and we don't
>get ulcers.
>Also, you have to remember that the reaction against respectability may be a
>purely American phenomenon in the extent that it has spread through most of
>the educated part of society. (Alex will probably argue with me on the
>extent, but that is my experience)  The result is that we have developed a
>very complicated social structure, with tons of hidden stratifications and no
>real way to deal with them that people feel comfortable with, so in reaction,
>we refuse to worry about it.
>It probably drives the rest of you nuts, but we mean well.
>
>Chuck the Heretic

---------
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 Jun 30 19:50:27 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 20:50:27 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Unveiled Isis
In-Reply-To: <9606292159.AA31931@toto.csustan.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <9606292159.AA31931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins
 writes
>
>Abrantes writes:
>Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves."

This is the meaning of the Hebrew name usually rendered "Joshua" but if
pronounced letter for letter in English comes out as Yehoshua.

> At the annunciation, the
>>angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which
>>expresses both his identity and his mission.[18]

"Jesus" is reported to have been born at a time when the common language
of the people of Galilee was Aramaic, and it is still the Armaic form of
his name which is used by the remanant Aramaic speaking churches.  This
is spelt Yod Shin Wau Aleph, but as Aramaic sticks an Aleph on the end
of just about every noun, the root of the name is Yod Shin Wau, which,
if you hear it pronounced by an Aramaic speaker comes out something like
"Ishoo" - similar to a sneeze.  It means, not "God saves," but "He
saves," which ties in with the NT idea (skip the Angel Gabriel stuff,
which is almost certainly a later story tacked onto the beginning of the
Churches' gospels of Matthew and Luke.)
>
>Since Jesus, is a Greek name, it is more likely that Gabriel gave
>the savior in the Christian New Testament a Hebrew name such as
>Joshua or Jehoshua.  Jesus is a Greek translation of these.

Well ... more like a transliteration.  It comes in two spellings, with
and without the final 's'. (In the Greek).  In two sections of Matthew's
gospel, he is first said to have been called Jesus at the behest of the
messenger of YHWH (1:21) but later (1:23) he is also a fulfillment of a
prophecy which says he shall be called "Immanuel" (God with us).  Matt.
1:18-21 is seen as a different section of original text from 1:22-25.
The gospel accounts *as we have received them* are well know by scholars
to be rescensions (edited versions) of earlier material, and the
earliest complete surviving text is as late as 208 c.e. (a.d.).  That
these stories contain eye-witness accounts is probable, but these will
not have survived the passage of time very well.  John's account is the
most interesting - no birth stories, but he knows *how many jars* there
were at the wedding feast at Cana ...
>
>>436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the
>>Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name
>>proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the
>>divine mission that "Christ" signifies.
>
>Yes, one is a "translation" of the other, but the words do not
>have quite the same meaning, so the translation is not a very
>good one, but perhaps the closest they could come.  The Messiah
>in Hebrew tradition is anointed with oils, and refers to a
>political King who was to bring world peace.

Well, in Israelite tradition, any old king, whether he brought peace or
not.  They had their own version of the "divine right of kings."

>  The reason why the
>Jews never accepted Jesus as their expected Messiah is because he
>was not a King in the political sense, and he did not bring
>peace.

Some "Jews" did, and some of them were Pharisees, but - my own research
suggests they would have understood Messiah/Christ in the metaphysical
sense anyway.

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 Jun 30 23:33:46 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:33:46 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Just dirty
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960630203347.006ca624@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960630203347.006ca624@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>What most
>Europeans really resent is the visceral knowledge that most people became
>Americans because they hated where ever it was they came from.
>
>alex

Maybe there was also a degreedy of "Go West, young man, and steal
someone else's land."  The Europeans had been doing this for centuries
before the US of A got into their sights!  All those Spaniards swarming
over South America and populating the continent with a whole new breed
of catholics.  The Vikings did it to us even earlier .....

Britain did a better job on Canada of course, which it managed to keep,
only there was some trouble with the French, which is still going on.

As for Ireland, well there again we may have George III to thank
(THANK??) for the inheritance of violence there.

In short, I suspect your analysis is incomplete.

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 Jul  1 01:43:37 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:43:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Down and dirty
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Alan ... re: Americans ... two funny quotes that don't sum up my thoughts
on the subject, but sort of sum up my attitude (-:) ...

"Always remember, our ancestors were kicked out of some of the best
countries in Europe"                                 (Bill Murray)

"Mainstream American morals seem, inexplicably enough, to be directly
derived from 1930's British films"		(Gore Vidal)

							Tee Hee, -JRC
From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 20:05:19 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 21:05:19 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Re: Coue
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960630072848.006c83a4@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960630072848.006c83a4@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>>Alan: Precisely how does one make an acute accent on a P.C.?

Hold down the ALT key and, at the same time press the numbers 130 on the
number pad (not the top row) then let go of ALT.  It is unlikely to
arrive at the other end of an e-mail though.
>
>As to your other little editorial comment, I don't hold it against you, but
>I see no reason to brag about it.

Who's bragging?  You seemed to imply that Brit theosophists were
recruited from "middle" or "upper middle class" people.  I would not
have mentioned the matter at all if you had not raised it in the first
place.

> England would be a lot healthier nation if
>it weren't so inextricably enmeshed in "class warfare"

But it isn't.  This is an anachronism.  The "class war" notions have
been dead for decades.

> Marx probably got his
>notions because he lived in England (and of course, both Marx and Engles had
>no contact with the lower classes other than to hand them their hats and
>coats). Alan, when you have spent as much time "in the streets" and "on the
>barricades" as I have, actively working for the betterment of the lower
>classes and other disenfranchised folks, then, and only then, will you be
>eligible to engage in subtle little digs. I still love you dearly, and
>respect you greatly, but I think you really need to "get over it".

And how do you know I have not done these things?  In my younger days I
was very active in anarchist and socialist circles in London.  I believe
my name is still on an MI5 list somewhere.  I am not making subtle
little digs, just trying to adjust the record without making a fuss.
Please do not talk down to me - I am not a Russian serf, and I love you
dearly too.

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 Jun 30 23:20:26 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 00:20:26 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Message-Id: 
Subject: Improper touching
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960630191755.006713d8@pop.slip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <2.2.32.19960630191755.006713d8@pop.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii  writes
>
>>>He was, at one time, expelled from the Adyar based Theosophical
>>>Society
>>
>>Correction: he resigned following an official enquiry headed by Colonel
>>Olcott.
>>
>>Alan
>
>>I have a question: In the end result, or product, how does a "forced
>resignation" differ from an "expulsion"? I realize that a "forced
>resignation" usually is done to prevent an "expulsion" but basically there's
>only a semantic difference.The result is the same and the motivation is
>usually to "save face" on either or both "sides".


In this case it appears he had his resignation letter ready before the
hearing even began, which, if the law was the same then as now - I
expect it was not very different - was a common sense survival tactic.
The question Olcott had to decide was whther to accept the resignation
or take stronger measures.

> If it hadn't been for Mrs.
>Besant's need to "save face" he probably would have been expelled with no
>prospect of re-call.

.. and Olcott decided to accept the resignation, though my personal
view is that Mrs. Besant was still in a state of confusion.  Olcott
clearly hoped the matter would go away with the man, and the reputation
of the Society would survive.  The real problem, T.S./E.S. wise came two
years later, when Annie B. reinstated him - after Oclott had died.

> But he should have been jailed.  Nowadays, what's
>called "improper touching" get's the "toucher" twenty years!
>
>alexis
>
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
From JacMa@aol.com Mon Jul  1 02:42:20 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:42:20 -0400
From: JacMa@aol.com
Message-Id: <960630224219_146345640@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Subject: Hello everybody

Just joining this group, with enthousiam when looking to the possibilities to
exchange ideas and experiences.
Looking to the charter of the group : (quote)

"Theos-L has been a discussion list created not to divide, but to unite the
members within their own defined limits.. It is expected that all list
members try to respect other people's differences and opinions"

give some confidence, but looking at the 4 first bulletins I received was
very disappointing. There are so much agressivity against theosophical
teaching that it does not deserve to bear this name.

Jacques
From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Jul  1 03:49:06 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 21:49:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: JRC 
Subject: Re: Hello everybody
In-Reply-To: <960630224219_146345640@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 JacMa@aol.com wrote:
>
> give some confidence, but looking at the 4 first bulletins I received was
> very disappointing. There are so much agressivity against theosophical
> teaching that it does not deserve to bear this name.
>
Welcome Jacques!
	Good to see you've acclimated to the list already! It usually takes
people at least a month before they start flaming the list (-:).
								-JRC

From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Jul  1 03:55:58 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:55:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: "m.k. ramadoss" 
Subject: Re: Hello everybody
In-Reply-To: <960630224219_146345640@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi

Glad to see your message. Don't be discouraged. In my humble opinion, all
of us are novices and students of wisdom. Each one of us can learn from
every other. We all come from various backgrounds and experience. No
one's experience is more or less important.

In most of the maillists, I have seen the phenomenon known as signal to
noise ratio. Sometimes many messsages may appear to the reader as noise.
This is unavoidable and I just hit the delete the key and go on.

If you want a thread on a particular topic, please post it. Some of us
will respond and some responses you may like and some may look resonable
to you. If you do not like any message, just hit delete key and move on.

If there is anything I can help you with, post a message or send me a
direct e-mail to ramadoss@eden.

This is my 2 cents worth.

	MK Ramadoss


On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 JacMa@aol.com wrote:

> Just joining this group, with enthousiam when looking to the possibilities to
> exchange ideas and experiences.
> Looking to the charter of the group : (quote)
>
> "Theos-L has been a discussion list created not to divide, but to unite the
> members within their own defined limits.. It is expected that all list
> members try to respect other people's differences and opinions"
>
> give some confidence, but looking at the 4 first bulletins I received was
> very disappointing. There are so much agressivity against theosophical
> teaching that it does not deserve to bear this name.
>
> Jacques

From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 00:49:06 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 01:49:06 +0100
From: Alan 
Message-Id: 
Subject: CWL10.TXT
Mime-Version: 1.0

CWL10.TXT

A letter to Miss Joan Amice Bottrell-Gosse in England.

This significant letter, transcribed from the original, shows the
   great sadness and despair that the CWL Affair in 1906 had upon
   not just the members of the T.S. in America, but also in the
   E.S. of the day.  I copying it to this medium, I have been
   overwhelmed by the misery which rises from the pages of 90 years
   ago.  I was asked recently if posting this material makes me
   happy.  The answer is that it makes me very sad.  Very sad
   indeed.  Read on ... A.B.

----------------------------

Esoteric School of Theosophy
American Division.

Corresponding Secretary
   Mrs. Helen I. Dennis
   218 East 60th St.
   Chicago

Assistant Secretary
   Mrs. Elizabeth M. Chidester, M.D.
   2321 Madison Square
   Philadelphia

November 25th '06

Dear Friend,

I have been half ill and postponed writing from many causes.  As to
   the E.S. - only sadness is there to write about.  The seven
   highest officials - Dr. C, the five Secy of D and I have
   resigned our offices because of Mrs. Besant's attitude and
   record.  How *can* the School be *truly* occult?  As a means of
   mutual study and mutual improvement of great use to all - but as
   an Esoteric or Occult body - truly where are we?  I cannot go
   into details - it is all to dreadful to us all.  The School in
   America is suspended awaiting her appointment of my successor
   and our members are nonplussed by the uncovering of the crimes
   of X - supported as an Initiate and direct Messenger of the
   White Lodge for years.  One does not need to pry into a man's
   past history to see that he has a dirty face - as it would seem
   that those claiming occult leadership should have seen such an
   aura without clairvoyantly prying into a man's life.  Our members
   are natural wondering, confused and losing confidence.  The
   Inner Circle in the opinion of all who have resigned has no
   excuse for being - we regard it just as you do & cannot give our
   moral support to such building up of a purely personal following
   in an Occult body supposed to have a true basis of spiritual
   realities.  Altogether it is impossible!  Never was I so sure of
   the truths of theosophy & I have learned much in the past year's
   suffering.  I do not believe that Masters work with certain
   methods & I do believe they are & always *will* use certain
   other methods.  The latter I shall try to follow by aid of my
   own conscience & intuition. The T.S. can use all the time and
   energy I can give and I shall do what I can in that.  And dark
   days are ahead of us in that with Mr. L. claiming that he *is*
   an instrument of the Masters - and not a few in this country
   believe it and are defending him and his theories by claiming
   that we have grossly misrepresented his teachings.  Well we are
   fast becoming a house divided against itself.  Have you a
   similar party in the T.S. in England?

Do you see "Jack London's" serial story - "Before Adam"?  I am
   sending the first installment and will send the others if you
   care to see them. Perhaps it is also coming out in England also
   [sic].  It is widely read here.

Just now a play a comedy is on the stage called "The Road to
   Yesterday" dealing with "Reincarnation" - the first scene is
   1903 in London - the second and third back to 1603 & the fourth
   and last return to 1903 again.  The characters of 1603 in old
   England are the same as those in 1903 - reborn in 1903 & the
   karma between them is quite skillfully worked out. - Has it
   appeared in London?  We are having Walls of Jericho Leah Heschua
   [?] & that one with the twins in too - in America.  Well this
   world is full of interest and there is so much to do.  I will
   write more at length later.  There are many social and family
   duties just now that seem to have been suddenly let loose upon
   me.  I am always so glad to hear from you and the necklace I
   wear often.  My love to Mrs. Betts - Ever your friend

Helen I Dennis.

-------------------

[There follows a further sheet with a postscript.  This in on
   another sheet of headed notepaper which gives, on the top right,
   the following information:

"Secretaries of Discipline

"Christian Gnostic, John H. Knapp, Room 1031 State Mutual Bldg.
   Boston, Mass.

"Philosophic, Walter G. Greenleaf, 49 East Kinzie Street, Chicago.

"Pythagorean, William K. James, 805 Faraon Street, St. Joseph, Mo.

"Raja Yoga, Mrs. Grace Shaw Duff, 87 Riverside Drive, New York
   City.

"General, Mrs. Mary Shibley Cole, M.D. Richmond, Ill."]

-----------------

[The postscript follows]:

P.S. I forgot to reply to you about the Inner School in connection
   with CWL. - There is no connection whatever. - The printed
   letter reached England before Mrs. Besant had the slightest
   inkling of the facts about Mr. L - in fact the summer I was in
   England I knew that the new Inner School was to be formed but I
   knew nothing of the nature of it.  She was considering the
   matter then spoke of it to a few - as to what would be the
   conditions of it etc.  These facts I know and there was not the
   least possible connection between the formation of it & CWL's
   acts. Needless to say none of us Americans ever heard or thought of a
   remote hint of X's doings when I was in London that summer.
   Never had I heard the faintest rumor until after my return -
   when I learned that they had been rife here under the surface
   for several years, having come from Ceylon.

No I have not read Hitchen's new book - will try to later when I am
   rested enough to read and all E.S. official duties are ended - I
   know of Stanley Hall's ideas - have heard him here of course.
   I am glad you enjoy the book for notes - I found these
   invaluable for E.S. records too.  My love to Mrs. Betts - and
   may the coming year be a happier one theosophically than the
   last one has been, Yes I should of course be interested in your
   study scheme - I gave your letter to F.T.S. here.

As ever

H.D.

--------------------------

[A note on the reverse of the letter, written after it had been
   folded]:

"Yes I have been told that English people & Americans addressed
   their letters differently - but I did not realize about it -
   glad you called my attention to it. - Would Miss Ward for
   instance object to being written as Miss Edith Ward?"

[Editorial note.  In places it is difficult to tell from Mrs.
   Dennis' handwriting whether a full stop/period is intended or a
   dash.  I have tried to render these according to the sense of
   the letter. - A.B.]

Transcribed and uploaded by Alan Bain, 30th June 1996.

---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 10:39:10 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson" 
Subject: What the issues aren't
Message-ID: <199706201439.KAA22292@leo.vsla.edu>


Unfortunately, the anti-CWL forces were so nutty in their
denuncations of masturbation that the real issues in the case
have been obscured.  Katherine Tingley was IMO rendering as
much harm by putting children to bed in devices to prevent
masturbation (on the order of straitjackets) as CWL was in
providing hands-on instruction.  Both practices were child
abuse and could have grave consquences in later life.

Masturbation is not the issue, and homosexuality is not the
issue.  Taking sexual advantage of minors, swearing them to
secrecy, telling them this was for their own spiritual welfare,
and doing so under the guise of a spiritual organization-- those
are the real issues.  And the TS has done absolutely nothing to
face them, or even admit what they are.  Tillett's book was not
reviewed in the AT or the Theosophist, both of which made vague
references to unnamed "biased attacks."  So perhaps the most
important issue of all is like that facing the Catholic
Church.  The sacrifice of truth and the welfare of children in
order to save the reputation of a corrupt priest and a corrupt
religious institution.

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:29:52 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: The Elder Brother
Message-ID: <199706201948.PAA09815@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

I don't consider that scewed  pile of misinformation source material, just
because there's nothing else. That writer didn't get to the right sources,
because CWL and his friends aren't interested in giving out information
about CWL. He went to the people who would talk to him, and that was not
CWL's inner circle. They were asked not to. Why I don't know, because it's
causing more misinformation, but CWL's inner cirlce honored his wishes.

Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:29:56 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: militias
Message-ID: <199706201948.PAA09933@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

My 2 cents worth ...
I consider militias, fascists, and paranoid. Being pranoid takes a certain
amount of intelligentce. So I think militias have a certian amount of
intelligence. it takes that to shoot rifles, devise bombs, and plan &
execute other terrorist activites.

I'm sure militias believe in the Constitution, etc. The problem is ... their
view of the Constitution is a bit different.

Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:03:20 EDT
From: trr@juno.com (Tom Robertson)
Subject: Re: What the issues aren't
Message-ID: <19970620.130235.5063.1.trr@juno.com>


On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:39:21 -0400 (EDT) "K. Paul Johnson"
 writes:
>
>Unfortunately, the anti-CWL forces were so nutty in their
>denuncations of masturbation that the real issues in the case
>have been obscured.  Katherine Tingley was IMO rendering as
>much harm by putting children to bed in devices to prevent
>masturbation (on the order of straitjackets) as CWL was in
>providing hands-on instruction.  Both practices were child
>abuse and could have grave consquences in later life.
>
>Masturbation is not the issue, and homosexuality is not the
>issue.  Taking sexual advantage of minors, swearing them to
>secrecy, telling them this was for their own spiritual welfare,
>and doing so under the guise of a spiritual organization-- those
>are the real issues.  And the TS has done absolutely nothing to
>face them, or even admit what they are.  Tillett's book was not
>reviewed in the AT or the Theosophist, both of which made vague
>references to unnamed "biased attacks."  So perhaps the most
>important issue of all is like that facing the Catholic
>Church.  The sacrifice of truth and the welfare of children in
>order to save the reputation of a corrupt priest and a corrupt
>religious institution.

Your use of the term "taking sexual advantage of minors" implies that CWL
was motivated by personal gratification in what he did.  I see no reason
to believe that.  On what basis do you say that this was not intended to
be and/or actually resulted in the children's spiritual
welfare?  Why are the possibilities that this training was intended to be
and/or actually was beneficial to the children, but that CWL was afraid
that the parents, not being capable of understanding that it was
beneficial for them, would have objected to it had they known about it,
ruled out?

By what passes for "abuse," I was "abused" once by a babysitter as a
child, also, but I am not aware of any ill effects.  Even assuming the
worst, what's the big deal, anyway?  Maybe the sacrifice of truth is
being done by those who go out of their way to see something against
which to crusade.

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:54:55 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: cwl
Message-ID: <199706202013.QAA26153@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

>>       I don't remember the source, but I am reasonably sure that Leadbeater
>>admitted to teaching the boys how to masturbate.
>>
>>       Bart Lidofsky
>
>Some of us have sources, and you are correct.  Probably JHE can give
>faster chapter and verse than I can.
>
>Alan

I have absolutely no quarrel with that. He did, and good for him, he was way
ahead of his times.

Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:17:55 -0500
From: "Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D." 
Subject: Re: militias
Message-ID: <33AAC8E3.2C81@earthlink.net>

> I'm sure militias believe in the Constitution, etc. The problem is ... their
> view of the Constitution is a bit different.

     May I ask...different in what regard?  I believe in the concept of
"militia" as defined in the U.S. constitution and all I know of militias
(as defined in the constitution) agrees with the Bill of Rights.  Could
you explain what you mean?

[ ... I suppose we can note and agree that a few fringe fanatics like
the Nazis or most liberals do not believe in basic human rights but in
coercively orchestrating society to make themselves feel good...and
these groups are separate from consitutional "militias" ... ]

-- Patrick

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:20:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: kymsmith@micron.net
Subject: Re: What the issues aren't
Message-ID: <199706202020.OAA06869@mailmx.micron.net>

Paul wrote:

>Masturbation is not the issue, and homosexuality is not the
>issue.  Taking sexual advantage of minors, swearing them to
>secrecy, telling them this was for their own spiritual welfare,
>and doing so under the guise of a spiritual organization-- those
>are the real issues.  And the TS has done absolutely nothing to
>face them, or even admit what they are.  Tillett's book was not
>reviewed in the AT or the Theosophist, both of which made vague
>references to unnamed "biased attacks."  So perhaps the most
>important issue of all is like that facing the Catholic
>Church.  The sacrifice of truth and the welfare of children in
>order to save the reputation of a corrupt priest and a corrupt
>religious institution.

Indeed, Paul, indeed.

I think the TS should render a public apology.  That would not only put the
terrible acts of CWL to its "best on could hope for" rest - but also show
that the TS is not like those "other" religious organizations we so mock.

It is in cases such as this where the Heart of an organization is tested. . .



Kym

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:08:31 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: CWL
Message-ID: <199706202026.QAA04908@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

> I fail to understand why CWL
>thought his "teaching" was necessary.  How do you teach someone to touch
>themselves - well - correctly?

He was teaching his young pupils. Also, in those days nothing we now take
for granted about sex was self explanatory, even if today you think it might
be. Their views were quite different, and their ignorance enormous. Just for
instance, I was taught when I was very little that if I touched myself my
fingers would rot off.

Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:39:50 -0500
From: "Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D." 
Subject: Sex & The end times
Message-ID: <33AACE00.45AE@earthlink.net>

As referenced in the SD...

     ...misuse of sex (masturbation, etc.) caused the end of Lemuria...

     ...emotional vampirism and selfishness caused the end of
Atlantis...

     ...mental manipulation and deception is the issue today...so in
honesty the solution will be found

Love,
Patrick

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:24:10 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: CWL
Message-ID: <199706202042.QAA14696@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

>I don't see why the motive to instruct cannot be justified.

Well, I happen  to know of one motive. One of CWL's pupils was getting
himself into trouble chasing all the skirts.


From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:53:27 -0700
From: "Romero Cortez D.Ma" 
Subject: To Patrick
Message-ID: <33AAEDC7.5F15@bahia.ens.uabc.mx>

Hi to all!
Hi Patrick, I just had seen your homepage on Holistics. interesting.
and a very puzzling game. though i'm somewhat lazy in that challenging
matters.
I wanted to make a suggestion on something you wrote in the seccion i
think of education:
You said:

>All education must be privatized

I believe not, Patrick. If a system of education is so good as you said,
You must try to all the pepole that asks for it, use it. I know that
public school is a mess (is worse i think in Mexico, in costs of
materials speccialy) but, i think a low budget version of things can be
good and can be done, speccialy in US where so much money is. and also in
European countries, where i believe a system as that is being used, i
presume.
Well, also for saying hello to all here. Kym,Lynn, i'm glad of you being
in peace. glad the info i post was worthwile, Lynn.
bye
Estrella

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:29:19 -0500
From: "Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D." 
Message-ID: <33AACB8C.6227@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Crash of the Economic System
References: <5oejml$d8i@news0-alterdial.uu.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>         I was sitting here thinking way into the future (2000) and was
> thinking about Dec 30 or 31 when all of the people,  they all withdraw
> their money at about the same time before Jan 1, 2000 and the banks of the
> world cannot cover all of the withdrawals.  This action would result in a
> crash of the world economic system.

     Agree...se la vi...the run on the banks may begin towards the end
of this year as people will want to withdraw and buy hard assets
early...who knows if paper money will have any value because...

     ....fun note...even though there are "officially" trillions of
dollars in existence today in computers... there are only about 300
billion printed :)..there's not even enough paper...

Happy Days...buy land :)

P

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:23:10 -0500
From: "Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D." 
Subject: Education (was Re: To Patrick
Message-ID: <33AAD89B.40F0@earthlink.net>

> >All education must be privatized
>
> If a system of education is so good as you said,
> You must try to all the pepole that asks for it

     Absolutely...that is why taxes should be eliminated and education
privatized..then the best education will occur for the most along the
lines described by M. Montessori ( a student of HPB's ).

     As a side note...we can notice that politically elected individuals
rarely (if ever?) send THEIR children to the public schools they vote
for...as an example in ths USA we have Al Gore & Bill Clinton who send
ther children to private schools instead of public ... says it all :)

Shanti,
P

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:56:33 +0100
From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" 
Subject: Re: What the issues aren't
Message-ID: 

In message <199706201439.KAA22292@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson"
 writes
>So perhaps the most
>important issue of all is like that facing the Catholic
>Church.  The sacrifice of truth and the welfare of children in
>order to save the reputation of a corrupt priest and a corrupt
>religious institution.

Well put.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:05:27 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: militias
Message-ID: <199706210023.UAA08831@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

This is mostly uppon reflection of asome of what Jaqi wrote.

> I don't know how many of the German people under the Nazis
>> >  were armed, but my guess is not all of them by any means.

The Nazis were bullies. I think, and it figures, that at least the Gestapo
and the SS were armed. I'm not sure about the ordinary brown shirts. I don't
really remember factuaklly, but I'd bet that many of them *were* armed.

"The enemy of truth is concensus". I don't agree with that at all at all. To
me, agreeing by concensus is superior to agreeing because the top of the
hierarchy  told you to. The statement is also suspect by me, because I know
concensus to be a female way of doing business, and whoever is depicting it
as an enemy - bits to buttons - is an antagonistic male.

I can see some sense to changing what I said about all militia being
fascist. When you mention the "Guardian Angels", I can see that they're
militia, and they helped when things in New York City got way out of bounds,
even though some people thought they were illegal. The colonial definition
of militia also makes sense for those times. Their militia sounds more like
our National Guard, which can be called out by the Governor. What those
militias were organized for is a far cry from militia espousing that Texas
is still a sovereign nation, or that the federal government is coming after
you with black helicopters, or that you're going to get carried to the next
dimension in a shiny flying saucer. I don't know really where to draw the
line there. Maybe at deluding people, especially into killing themselves. It
becomes a little vague, expecially when you think of J Edgar Hoover keeping
a file on the likes of Albert Einstein, and Martin Luther King. I suppose he
kept the file under his skirts!

Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:05:38 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: advanced technique
Message-ID: <199706210024.UAA08885@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

Dear Paul,
I love you too.

b.s.

Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:05:42 -0400
From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch)
Subject: CWL
Message-ID: <199706210024.UAA08895@ultra1.dreamscape.com>

>There is only one well-researched
>secondary source on this issue, Tillett's book.  And if you
>think he's biased and untrustworthy, he still

Tillett didn't get to talking to the Outer Head, nor did he get to the
archives in Adyar, nor the archives in Wheaton. Those are a few sources I
know about. What well researched? He talked mostly to people who didn't like
CWL and not to many who did like him.
Liesel

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:38:18 -0600
From: kymsmith@micron.net
Subject: Re: militias
Message-ID: <33AB227A.3534@micron.net>

Patrick wrote:

> [ ... I suppose we can note and agree that a few fringe fanatics like
> the Nazis or most liberals do not believe in basic human rights but in
> coercively orchestrating society to make themselves feel good...and
> these groups are separate from consitutional "militias" ... ]


No, Patrick, we cannot agree.  Liberals are not like Nazis, nor do they
think or believe as the Nazis did/do.

The Holocaust really is just a matter of convenient comparison to you,
isn't it?  Just throw it around with no real thought of its meaning. . .


Kym

From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:08:34 -0500
From: Senzar 
Subject: Bing Escudero's Lecture Tour Update
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970620190834.006a4a5c@mail.stic.net>

Update on Bing Escudero's Lecture Tour as of June 20, 1997


Date                    Place/Subject               Contact
====================================================================
June 20, 97       Mobile, AL                    Aleta Boudreaux
Friday            Unitarian Church              334-865-6506
19.00 Hrs.        Secret Doctrine               Elmo Hammer
                                                334-479-1321


June 22, 97       Florida Federation            Mohammed Mokhtar
Sunday            San Pedro Spiritual Center    12581 81 Ave N
11:00 - 15:30 Hrs 2400 Dike Rd., Winter Park    Seminole FL 33776
                  Forbidden Teachings of the    813-399-0732
                  Ages

June 22, 97       Winter Park Study Center      Fred Khan  407-678-5653
Sunday            Master Key to Nidanic         200 St. Andrews Blvd
20:00 Hrs         Autotheraphy                  #3602
                                                Winter Park, FL 32792

June 24, 97       St. Petersburgh Branch        Mohammed Mokhtar
Tuesday           Understanding the             12581 81 Ave N
20:00 Hrs         Consciousness Process         Seminole FL 33776
                                                813-399-0732

June 29, 97       Miami Branch                  Vril Clarin 954-481-5998
Sunday            Essentials Uniting The        3132 Lakeshore Drive
19:00 Hrs         World Religions               Deerfield FL 33442
                  Ph: 954-420-0908
=====================================================================

PS: On this lecture tour which began on June 14 at Tulsa, OK,
Bing would be travelling a total of 3,500 miles by the time
he returns back to Tulsa.