From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 00:10:01 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:10:01 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Theosophy International Update Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color. 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion, theosophy, philosophy, and the scientific method, according to individual ability and inclination." 3. To investigate mysteries of nature and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life." THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary network, whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects, and to be registered as having done so. No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member. All have the right to choose, without trace of coercion, the path by which they seek understanding. There are no fees, no subscriptions, although voluntary donations and/or contributions could be made to specific projects or even individuals for particular and specified purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules, whether anyone participates in or supports any such activity is an entirely personal matter. We hope to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations, as also with like-minded individuals. ------------------------------- To join Theosophy International, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk or give your name and other details you wish to share to whoever introduced you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "TI" has members in ten countries. ----------------------------------- List of current members: Contact and affiliation information is provided for some members who have expressed a wish to be identified further as a means of promoting our work, and who will be pleased to provide details of "what's on offer" either from the member personally, or within the local area, where specified. Members outside the U.S.A. are also identified by country. Albert ADALSTEINSSON (Iceland) E-mail: alberta@centrum.is Dr. Frederic ANDRES (Japan) E-mail: andres@rd.nacsis.ac.jp John ASHBY (UK) Alan BAIN, D.D. (UK): Member, TSE (Unattached). Former member, American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature (retired). E-mail: ti@nellie2.demon.co.uk Gregg BARTLE: TSA E-mail: currently offline Virginia BEHRENS: TSA E-mail: SeussInUse@gnn.com Ann Elizabeth BERMINGHAM E-mail: 72723.2375@compuserve.com Mrs. Geraldine BESKIN (UK): One House Lodge, Onehouse, Stowmarket, Suffolk. Bee BROWN (NZ): Theosophical Society in New Zealand (Whanganui) E-mail: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Charles W. COSIMANO E-mail: Drpsionic@aol.com John R. CROCKER E-mail: jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Liesel F. DEUTSCH E-mail: liesel@dreamscape.com Ellen DONALDSON (UK) Martin EUSER (NL) E-mail: euser@euronet.nl Mark A. FOSTER, Ph.D. * Sociologist of Religion * Full-Time College Faculty Sociology, JCCC, 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210 * 913/768-4244 Dir., Reality Sciences Inst. * Acad. Dir., Found. for the Science of Reality Staff, 4 Compuserve & AOL Forums * Owner, 4 EMail Lists * List Co-Moderator Board of Dirs./Exec. V.P./Talent, Tektite Films * BBS Sysop (913/768-1113) E-mail: mfoster@qni.com R.A. GILBERT (UK): Member, TSE (Unattached). Bookseller, Occult, Masonic and Theological. E-mail: Robert@nellie2.demon.co.uk Paul GILLINGWATER: Life member of HPB Lodge, Auckland, New Zealand Currently residing in Vienna, Austria E-mail: paul@actrix.co.at Robert HOLMSTROM: Theosophical Society in Canada E-mail: rholmstrom@voyageur.ca Sy GINSBURG: Theosophical Society in Miami, TSA. E-mail: 72724.413@compuserve.com Joanne GREIG (NZ): Member of Wellington Branch of the T.S. E-mail: astrea@actrix.co.at) Michael GRENIER: Member-at-large, TSA E-mail: mike@planet8.eag.unisysgsg.com Jerry HEJKA-EKINS E-mail: jhe:toto.csustan.edu K. Paul JOHNSON E-mail: pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Lewis LUCAS E-mail: llucas@mercury.gc.peachnut.edu Ken MALKIN: Theosophical Society in Miami, TSA E-Mail: Malkin@gil.net John E. MEAD E-mail: jem@vnet.net Maxim OSINOVSKY Working at: Main Library, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., USA; American Institute of Physics Member: Oakland (California) Branch of Theosophical Society in America; American Physical Society E-mail: mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Mika Perala: Theosophical Society in Finland E_mail: mikap@dlc.fi Anne PICKER E-mail: picker@utkvx.utcc.utk.edu Kim POULSEN (DK): Member of Teosofisk Forening (Theosophical Union), formerly TS Danish Section. [Denmark]. E-mail: poulsen@dk-online.dk Keith PRICE E-mail: 74024.3352@compuserve.com Bjorn ROXENDAL E-mail: roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Jerry SCHUELER E-mail: 76400.1474@compuserve.com Zach SPILLER zas5431@prin.edu Murray STENTIFORD (NZ): Theosophical Society in New Zealand (Auckland) E-mail: mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Gerda J. THOMPSON (USA) Eldon B. TUCKER E-mail: eldon@theosophy.com Terry WALLACE (Attorney) Life member, TSA (Wheaton); President, Ravali County Branch. Originally joined the TS at Adyar via John Coats. Peter WALSTRA (NL): Member, Theosophical Society in the Netherlands (Adyar). World Theosophical Youth Federation. Agni Yoga Society. Database administrator national theosophical library/ E-mail: pwalstra@pi.net Carol WARD E-mail: CarolWard@aol.com Kay ZIATZ (Russia) E-mail: Kay_Ziatz@p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org Abbreviations: TSA: Theosophical Society in America (Adyar). ULT: United Lodge of Theosophists. TSP: Theosophical Society, Pasadena TSE: Theosophical Society in England Total signed up to date: 41 --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Aug 1 03:23:19 1996 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 16:23:19 +1300 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <32002327.109B@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What's next in the movement~ References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maxim Osinovsky wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > >You see, I remain quite convinced that both the elaborate systems of > > >Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis were the direct, analogical, creative > > >products of perhaps a long line of advanced individuals who were > > >first-and-foremost expert witnesses of their own states of consciousness. > > Could be. I remain skeptical, largely because it is hard for > > me to believe that HPB, and only HPB, has given this out publically. > > How about some publications of the Temple of the People, like Theogenesis > and Teachings of the Temple? And the books by Vitvan http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvan/html I am rather silent just now as I am busy reading his stuff and rather enjoying myself. Love his energy-frequency approach to the Wisdom. Bee From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 1 05:57:26 1996 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:57:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: What's next in the movement~ In-Reply-To: <32002327.109B@whanganui.ac.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > > How about some publications of the Temple of the People, like Theogenesis > > and Teachings of the Temple? > > And the books by Vitvan > http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvan/html > I am rather silent just now as I am busy reading his stuff and rather > enjoying myself. Love his energy-frequency approach to the Wisdom. One more addition to the above suggestions--books by Henry T. Laurency, two of them (plus a few booklets) having been translated from Swedish to English: 1. The Philosopher's Stone (1985), and 2. The Knowledge of Reality (1979), both published by The Henry T Laurency Publishing Foundation, Sweden. Some people consider him an initiate who was connected with Master Hilarion. It deserves some attention in connection with the issue of authoratitave expositions of Secret Doctrine including Psychogenesis. Max From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 14:48:09 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 10:48:09 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Elitism and Esotericiam Message-Id: <960801144809_72723.2375_FHP46-1@CompuServe.COM> Eldon: >We must have quite radically different experiences of members >of the T.S.'s. You seem to universally rate them highly, despite >all the T.S. bashing that went on earlier this year. I don't >rate them at all -- neither good nor bad -- but observe that >a majority seem ready to believe almost anything and to be >finding the whole experience of being in a T.S. like joining a >club. . . Two ideas immediately occurred to me when I read this. One is that I have found active Theosophists have vastly different beliefs and are usually ready *not* to believe anything. As a group, they consistently seem to display a "prove it to me attitude", followed by "let's argue about it." If they were otherwise, they would enjoying a mainstream religion or sitting home watching sitcoms. Theosophy attracts people who are independent and their independence is going to show up even within the organization, fights and all. TS seems like a club? What would you like to be? More like a university atmosphere, esoteric school, ashram, footbal team? > This is radically different than a real spiritual practice, >which I'll again say *can* be found with Theosophy. What is this "real spiritual practice" you are referring to? Are you talking about something along the lines of a yogic path, where a teacher counsels the disciple and give certain disciplines? Why am I asking these questions? Because I find this whole issue confusing. I have never gotten the impression that the Theosophical movement offered a set of specific steps that would lead to enlightenment. I ascertained that by the time an individual became independent enough to have come to Theosophy, they would have become the path themselves. Not needing a "system", they could engage in studying other paths and other materials made available to them through the Society. By coming together, they could schmooze and fight and eat veggie meals together, bouncing ideas off each other's heads and learning from it, without anyone trying to convince the other that they had "the way". There was a time when I did not even know what a Theosophist was. To my good fortune, I attended my first summer school led by John Algeo. His words are permanently burned into my brain. He said, "A Theosphist meditates, studies and serves." (Forgive me, John, if that is not the right order.) If that's what you're talking about, then we agree that those three things make up the Theosohical path. But if you mean something more specific and detailed, then we're in trouble and I ain't talking about you and me. You can't take a group of very independent, feisty, intellectual and passionately spiritual people, who have, for the most part, found their own spiritual path, straight-jacket them into a philosophy and funnel them into a system. If you try, they are going to run like you-know-what to somewhere else. - Ann E. Bermingham From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu Aug 1 15:06:31 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:06:31 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Elitism and Esotericiam In-Reply-To: <960801144809_72723.2375_FHP46-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > You can't take a group of very independent, feisty, intellectual and > passionately spiritual people, who have, for the most part, found their own > spiritual path, straight-jacket them into a philosophy and funnel them into a > system. If you try, they are going to run like you-know-what to somewhere else. Yes! And not because they aren't "ready" for some elevated truth ... but perhaps precisely because they *are*. -JRC From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 1 15:29:22 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:29:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608011529.RAA26296@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Fuller version of the tree of life - to Alan Alan wrote: The "Abyss" symbolism belongs to the "single tree" version promulgated by the Golden Dawn, but disappears when the fuller version is known and used. There would be a kind of "borderline," to use Maxim's term, at Tiphareth in Briah. Alan: what's this fuller version? Usually one encounters one single tree. Some people make it into two trees, or rather render a dualistic version of the tree. And some talk about four trees of life, one for each of the Four Kabbalistic Worlds. Is that the fuller version you're talking about? Martin From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 1 15:29:19 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:29:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608011529.RAA26290@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma M> This is the most interesting part to me: > > - what reincarnates (manas?) Alan>In this terminology, I cannot say, except that certainly not manas! Buddhi? 50/50 on that. A piece of atma perhaps :-) Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new manifestation? M> And that these 'seeds' or tendencies remain >latent in the auric egg or Field of consciousness-life-matter? > No. Let me phrase this differently. Let us assume the standpoint of the human monad. It manifests as a personality, has its experiences, and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. It stores what it has learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new environment it is going to manifest in, etc. Does this picture appeal to you somehow or do you view this process in a different way? M> I have read several accounts of spiritualists about Summerland, >astral spheres, mental spheres, spirit guides, etc. These accounts seem to >suggest that the astral body continues for a long time to live in several >spheres (and some spiritualists do teach reincarnation although it is not clear >to me what exactly reincarnates in their view: astral soul/body or what?) A>Not to put too fine a point on it, I think they are glamourising their findings. One question here is what do you understand by "astral body?" The kama-manas entity. > Alan Martin From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 1 15:29:08 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:29:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608011529.RAA26269@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: karma & reincarnation - to Michael Rogge Michael wrote: >Since then I have grown wiser to the extent that I do not believe in anything anymore. Like in science I hold on to working hypotheses until a better one comes forward. That seems to be a sensible approach to me. >We have to realise that with our "simple" brain structure we cannot behold the complete truth. There is always a truth behind a truth, as seen from another perspective/dimension. Indeed, a realization of that makes one a bit more humble. >In a former contribution to this discussiongroup on 12 July, I have stated that the idea that nature renders justice by a law of KARMA seems more a wish than based on facts. That depends on what one's concepts of 'law', 'karma' and 'justice' are. >One can also see it another way. Every act/thought of man ties him to a pattern of behaviour. He enters into and becomes part of a state of mind that is reflected in his behaviour. He is attracted and absorbed by a world in which such acts and desires are natural. If that person wishes to free himself of his fixation, he will find that the way back is relentlessly harsh. To start acting and thinking on another level will prove to be a heavy burden. To undo previous actions/desires will appear like a punishment and an arduous trail. But this is not a law of KARMA, it is plain psychology/behaviourism. This is a part of my concept of 'karma'. I described some characteristics of 'thought patterns' (inclusive of emotions, desires, acts) in an article on the web. (I think you've read that already) I think there is more to it than just that as there seem to be so many aspects/layers of ourselves that we are hardly aware of. >Admittedly, interrelationships between individuals and groups give rise to ties/links that may work in mysterious ways/synchronisms, but it cannot be compared to a law of nature. In short the concept of Karma reflects the nineteenth century way of thinking that all could be explained by discovering the mechanisms of nature. The fallacy lies in the word "all". A further development of the concept of karma can be found with GdeP. He says that there *are no laws of nature* in the strict sense of the word 'law'. Laws are just (collective/individual) behavioural patterns and patterns of interaction (between the many kingdoms of nature). Seems plausible to me. In different cultures different behaviours are acceptible. Standards and notions change over time, so, interaction patterns may change. Yet, there may be a deeper layer to these 'laws' when we take the influence of the higher kingdoms of nature into account. Then other 'laws' may come into effect. >I find a similar simplicity and naivity in the concept of REINCARNATION. Without going into speculative divisions of the nature of man, we come to the first simple question: what reincarnates? However ghastly it may sound to a Theosophists' ear: man appears to be the product of his genes, education, environment, time, fate, and, may be, something else. The nature and extent of the last intangible part is open to discussion. What about consciousness? >We know how a person is handicapped when his memory function is impaired. But he still has a notion of identity, ie ego-ity. >What is left of a person stripped of all earthly attainments? Don't you acknowledge the existence of a Self and an individuating process? >Next to the identity question is that of the proliferation of the human race. The only way out of explaining the ever-increasing number of human souls is of animal souls being upgraded. That's not the only way. The earthly scene may be more popular to the human monads now, due to the possibilities of accellerated growth now. >There is another angle of approach. Living creatures tune in to similar forms of life instinctively or otherwise. We have no idea how much we ourselves are in tune with a kindred spirit(s) elsewhere in space and time. Returning to a previous incarnation may be explained by tuning in to a being whose state of mind is/was in tune with ours. Yes. That could also be a sensible interpretation of memories that occur during hypnotic regression sessions. >Against this supposition it may be argued that seldomly 'a return' to a person still alive is being experienced. Although that may be excused by supposing that the mind flinches from such an unexpected encounter. But impressions of people still alive may be picked up by others who take these impressions to be their own, I think. >In favour of reincarnation is nature's tendency to use already existent structures in evolution. Using the set-up of mind of a deceased person for structuring a new baby could fit into this noted property of nature. A baby's unconscious mind in development may grope for information and align itself with a mind similar to its own. That might explain (partly?) the psychic inheritance of family character traits. >The above are all reflections that come to mind when thinking of reincarnation. I have a strong feeling that we are missing in our knowledge important clues/analogies that might throw an entirely new light on this matter. Well, Theosophy doesn't provide the particulars of the process of reincarnation. An open mind is always necessary, certainly in these matters. >GROUP-PSYCHOLOGY. In the discussions matters of expelling unfaithful members etc. were brought up. In my opinion this is all part of group-psychology within spiritual movements, Theosophy not exempted, on which I have written a paper to be found under: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html. Your opinion will be valued. MICHAEL ROGGE Michael: I've read your essay and found it a sound piece of work. Regarding Theosophical Societies, I've said before that I perceive a lack of serious attempts to synthesize new scientific findings with Theosophy. If we regard Theosophy as a set of coherent working hypotheses, then there's a need to test these hypotheses in our own life and besides that relate them to the findings in psychology, physics, biology, etc. during this century. If that doesn't happen some other Society will make an effort in this direction (as I think has happened to some degree; individuals are doing that kind of work too now). This lax attitude has driven the T.Societies out of the interest of many scientists and others. But that may be the TSs karma:) Martin From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 16:02:57 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 12:02:57 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Vitvan's URL Message-Id: <960801160257_72723.2375_FHP48-1@CompuServe.COM> Bee: >And the books by Vitvan >http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvan/html Tried reaching this URL. It did not work for me, but this one did: http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvanam.htm - Ann E. Bermingham From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Aug 1 16:07:18 1996 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 12:07:18 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608011713.NAA02145@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: What's next in the movement. Hi, folks, I'm just now getting back on track & caught Richard's writing, which quotes Jerry S a little. I don't agree with you guys, from my perspective. Richard, you ask how one can know what's actually ahead, and my answer to that is to, for instance, take the "Mahatma Letters" for real. Eventually, I believe, we'll all evolve to be able to function as Morya and Koot Humi did. I thought that was a theosophical belief. Jerry, you say "we all know how flaky intuition is". Well, it *is* for most people, but I've mentioned this example before. Harry, who in many ways (but not all) was more advanced than most of us, once told me to take a remedy for my heart. At the time he lived in Australia, & I in Syracuse. I got worried and had my MD do an EKG. The MD said I had a heart murmur so slight I need never worry about it. But Harry had spotted it when he diagnosed me, in spite of all that distance ... but he was especially gifted & especially trained. Liesel From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 17:02:07 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 13:02:07 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Freedom of Thought Message-Id: <960801170207_72724.413_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM> In the current issue of the American Theosophist (Late Summer 1996) there appears the following letter to the editor under the title "Freedom of Thought": "I have been quite impressed with the information that you greet new members with. It is a valuable job well done. I have, however, heard a disturbing rumor that the Society has and will censure people who engage in studies not within the framework considered "Theosophy." I hope I was misinformed." (signed) Mathias Van Thiel, Hayward, CA. The editor replies: "Indeed you were misinformed...." and goes on to recite the general council (Adyar) resolution on "Freedom of Thought" which it says is published regularly in the Adyar Theosophist, and "The Theosophical World View" statement which appears on the back cover of the American Theosophist. I assume that new member, Van Thiel, will be reassured by the editor's statements, as I was when I joined the Society 18 years ago, and saw that the only requirement for Society membership was to be in sympathy with the 3 declared objects. But after uncovering facts through independent investigation, on behalf of the TS in Miami & South Florida, and largely unknown to most members, I am embarassed by the reply given Mr. van Thiel, because the Editor's statements do not accord with the bahavior of National and International officers, who have taken actions opposed to freedom of thought by expelling Lodges and National Sections. I discovered that the Danish National Section was expelled by Adyar in 1989 primarily for what appears to me to be overemphasizing the Alice Bailey teachings. I discovered that the Boston Lodge was expelled from TSA in 1993 primarily for what appears to me to be overemphasizing the Alice Bailey teachings. I also discovered that the Canadian National Section was expelled by Adyar in 1992. I discovered that the Yugoslavian National Section was expelled by Adyar in 1984. At the Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida we have hanging on the wall a beautifully framed rendering of the 3 declared objects. When prospective new members inquire about membership requirements, we show them the National Membership Application, and point to our framed rendering of the Objects. Indeed, the National Membership Application in 1996 has imposed no further requirements than the application I signed in 1978. The sole membership requirement as stated continues simply, to be in sympathy with the 3 declared objects. But now that we at Miami know what happened in Denmark and in Boston, it has become an embarassment to continue to say this to prospective new members. And I would be embarassed if I were the AT editor and made the reply to Mr. Van Thiel that was made. If the AT Editor really means what he replied to Mr. Van Thiel, then why has there been no move on the part of the TSA officers to redress what was done to the Boston Lodge and make an effort to bring them back into the larger Society? Similarly, why has there been no move on the part of Adyar to bring Denmark and Canada back into the larger Society? So far as I know, even as recently as the July convention, there has been no move on the part of the officers of TSA to take any positive steps in this direction. Eldon Tucker wrote to this list on 7/31 under "Elitism or Esotericism": "They do try to stick to their brand of Theosophy (Adyar), although the politics involved and the expulsions are, to put it mildly, undesirable." Yes, that's putting it mildly, Eldon. How can the officers and directors of TSA go about mouthing the 3 Declared Objects but acting contrarily to them? And how can TS members who presumably do care about the TS, simply say that "expulsions are, to put it mildly, undesirable" and let it go at that, not letting their objections be strongly heard by the national officers? The expulsions of Lodges and National Sections, are unacceptable if we who are members of the TS(Adyar), really believe in the 3 Declared Objects, and care about the T.S. Some of us TS members do care and do not want to see the TS dwindle into insignificance, as is rapidly happening, because of actions not in accord with the 3 Declared Objects. We will be holding a Conference in St. Louis October 5th to reaffirm our sympathy with the 3 Declared Objects and to otherwise work on this matter. As I mentioned on this list earlier, if anyone wants to participate and cares enough, please Email your name and address and/or those of your interested colleagues to me and I will mail you the information about the Conference. Sincerely Sy Ginsburg From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Aug 1 18:54:44 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 14:54:44 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608011854.OAA19402@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Elitism or Esotericism In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960801095045.0069748c@mail.imagiware.com>; from "Eldon B. Tucker" at Jul 31, 96 11:15 pm Dear Eldon, Your post provides the opportunity to try to clarify some things. I get the impression that you sincerely do not see what it is about the statements you make that offends people. The way you characterize others' objections to your remarks indicates a blind spot to the subtle message you are conveying that is so irritating to so many, me included. So, in the spirit of brotherhood, let me deconstruct your post and try to give some clues as to where the problems lie. > certain occult doctrines. What distinguishes us from other groups > is, I'd say, the doctrines and what is behind them. We are not > distinguished in any other way. Brotherhood, comparative studies, > and paranormal investigations are to be found in a multitude of > groups. Is the primary purpose of a group to focus its energy on the things that separate it from others, or the things that unite it with humanity? Needing to be "distinguished" seems to me to be part of the heresy of separateness. A.R.E. has a larger body of unique doctrinal material than Theosophy does, but I don't see even a tiny fraction of the concern with being separate from other people. Which may have something to do with why it is such a vital, expanding group in comparison. > > I'm not judging people. Are you? I'm not the only one to express a > concern about Theosophy being watered down over the generations, but > actually disfigured and lost at times. Eldon, you didn't just describe a process, you said "the only problem" was that there were so many *people* in the TS who... etc. That is very explicitly blaming your present-day *fellow-Theosophists* as a group for not being sufficiently devoted to the source writings, etc. > > My concern is with the "anti" attitude, as I find it, where people > are simply unwilling to allow others to study and promote the > doctrines, and make of it a spiritual path. Here's the straw man I've been looking for!! Who has ever *refused to allow* others do study and promote the doctrines and make of them a spiritual path? How, when and where did this occur? Who could even be in a position to do so? It looks to me as if anyone in a position to allow or disallow anything in the movement is totally on your side in this, and strongly encourages precisely the approach you endorse. The people who are unwilling to allow others to pursue Theosophy as they choose are emphatically *not* the eclectic liberals whose presence disturbs you, but the doctrinaire conservatives. Statement that > there might be such a thing often elicit anger, as some people > feel offended when someone says "there's something special here" > when they personally find no such thing. > Who are those some people? I certainly find nothing offensive in that statement, and in fact agree wholeheartedly with it. So, I'm sure, does JRC, with whom you have had such prolonged disputes, and Ann, and everyone else on theos-l. As for some no longer here... > > We must have quite radically different experiences of members > of the T.S.'s. You seem to universally rate them highly, despite All I know is this. For 10 years I was involved in a Pasadena-affiliated local group, and networked with other members of that Society in Maryland. For the past 10 years I have visited, usually as a speaker, the Adyar-affiliated lodges in D.C. and Baltimore on a regular basis. Once each I have spoken to lodges in Berkeley, CA and Atlanta. I have been to two annual meetings in Wheaton and four history conferences, three in London and one in San Diego. Plus the SD Centenary in Pasadena and the Dissemination conference in New York in 1987. I'm not "rating" anything, simply saying that there seemed to be a universal common denominator of interest in esotericism, and a laudable open-mindedness and desire to learn. In all that exposure to Theosophists, the main impression I got was precisely those two things: avid pursuit of esoteric studies, and hearts and minds open to new angles on theosophy/Theosophy. > all the T.S. bashing that went on earlier this year. I don't > rate them at all -- neither good nor bad -- but observe that > a majority seem ready to believe almost anything That may be another straw man. Perhaps "believe" is more important in your worldview than that of most Theosophists, and what they are really ready to do is entertain any hypothesis-- precisely because they are not "believers" in the sense you are. and to be > finding the whole experience of being in a T.S. like joining a > club. This is radically different than a real spiritual practice, > which I'll again say *can* be found with Theosophy. > ?? What is "unreal" about participating in a club where people study esotericism and exchange views? You are making an opposition out of two things that can and should coincide comfortably. People may not have the *same* spiritual practice, and they surely don't pursue their spiritual practice in a TS group setting. But individually, I think most Theosophists have some sort of spiritual practice, and don't consider myself qualified to say whether or not it's "real." > >Everyone I know in any TS is strongly interested in esotericism! > > Huh? That's certainly different than my understanding. When I'd > speak of someone "being on the Path" or someone being engaged in > a genuine spiritual process, I'm describing a distinct, discrete, > unique event that has happened in someone's life. You would have to know people intimately to judge whether or not they are "on the Path." But you seem to take the position of "guilty until proven innocent"-- making the assumption they are *not* unless they show you the kind of evidence you consider necessary to convince you otherwise. At any rate, "interested in esotericism" and "being on the Path" don't strike me as synonymous. > If you water down everything regarding the spiritual to the point > of mediocrity, where everyone that walks by on the street qualifies, > you obscure and drive underground any real knowledge of the > subject. > So now, the average TS member who doesn't strike you as "on the Path" or "interested in esotericism" is on the level of "everyone that walks by on the street." Gee whiz, can't you see how this strikes your fellow Theosophists as elitism? > First, as one of many possible approaches to the spiritual, a > theosophical organization is entitled to follow its own agenda and > carry out its own specialization. The agenda and specialization of the TS's is set pretty clearly in such things as the Three Objects, the Original Programme ms., the Mahachohan's letter-- all of which endorse an open-minded, open-hearted embrace of humanity, not a "mine's better than yours" smug elitism. > > Second, when a genuine spiritual approach is taught, e.g. esotericism, > there are many that it may not appeal to. Some are drawn to other > approaches. Others do not yet feel a calling to the spiritual. It is > not judgemental to say that some people are drawn to it and others > are not. You aren't talking about "some people" in this regard, but about *most Theosophists*-- which is *very* judgmental. Implicit in the above passage is that you can discern who is attracted to a "genuine spiritual approach" and who does not even "yet feel a calling to the spiritual." If you didn't feel qualified to make such judgments, there would be no basis for you to complain about the low level of the average Theosophists. It is disrespectful to deny, mock, and charge with egotism > and pride those that follow a particular path. Eldon, for the umpteenth time, no one is offended by the path you follow-- just your constant harping on its superiority to those followed by the people you're talking to! I respect you and your own path, and your right to propagandize for it. But I vociferously disrespect the way you keep bashing the large group of unnamed fellow-Theosophists for not being "ready" to be just like you. It is not appropriate > to say: "I find nothing in that stuff, and you say there's something > there, so therefore you're an arrogant, condescending, elitist, > true-believer." This tells me that you have been missing the point SO completely that it may be worthwhile to say it again. No one considers you arrogant, or condescending, or elitist, or a true believer, as a result of the value you find in the source literature that turns you on. All those qualities are expressed, *not* in your positive comments about what appeals to you, but in your negative comments about people who do not resonate to the same things in the same way. > > The ULT and Pasadena TS are in less danger of losing their > philosophical foundation, but the danger is real in any organization, > regardless of belief, if it is overrun with people of contrary > beliefs and ideas. The original ideas are left behind and potentially > lost to the world. What's contrary and what's complementary? "Overrun"? Can't you see that you are describing your fellow-Theosophists as aliens who don't belong when you use terminology like that? > I don't think that people that "believe in" Theosophy are > fundamentalists, If they constantly judge and disparage the "belief" or lack thereof of others, they are. and that those that don't have an exclusive > claim to being able to reevaluate, rethink, and explore the > philosophy. I'd rather think that those that take the philosophy > seriously and give it the greatest thought would have the > greatest progress in exploring it, although you'd likely > label them among us "fundamentals" and "true believers". Come on. I have read the SD four times, the CWs straight through, etc. etc. AFAIK, Alan, Jerry S., JRC, and many others here who are by no means fundamentalist true believers have probably done so. There are a great number of people who have taken the philosophy seriously, given it great thought, made progress in exploring it. You are labeling me by suggesting that I would call all people with such experience fundamentalists and true believers. The only cause for considering someone to fall into that category is seeing them behave like fundamentalist true believers elsewhere-- constantly harping on the spiritual inadequacy of others being the first clue. > > When you say that the "insufficiently-orthodox" people are > "blamed" for the problems of the movement, that's conjecture > on your part. I don't see blame there. I see the blame in > those of us who would work to spread Theosophy, and don't > take responsibility for ourselves as well. The blame is in > would-be Theosophists for not sincerely trying to tread the > Path, not in people of differing philosophies, approaches, > and interests, who won't imitate us and follow the way that > we're taking. Somehow I fail to see the distinction. > > Again the same claim! Why is it that whenever I attempt to > make a case for the genuine nuggets of gold to be found in > Theosophy, and for a bona fide spiritual approach to be > behind it, I get all these claims that I and people that > are equally convinced with me are harping on how superior > we are? That's totally bizarre. So no matter how many people tell you the same thing, you are adamantly refusing to grant it a moment's consideration? Indeed, reject it as bizarre? In that case, I won't respond to future statements of the sort, since there will be no hope of getting through to you. Eldon, for one LAST TIME, the problem is not and has never been with what you find of positive value in Theosophy, but rather the constant way you express contempt for people you perceive as not adequately appreciating the same things. Evidently, you do that without being at all conscious of it. If it were just me perceiving it, I might think there's just a personal miscommunication here. But when so many others react the same way to the same thing in you, I feel confident that it's not in *all* our imaginations. There's no comparison of > "I'm up here, she's a little lower, and this guy is way > down there on the scale of things." There's just an somewhat > awed attempt to describe some wonderful treasures that we've > been blessed to have because of the theosophical movement. Consciously. Unconsciously, there is something quite different, negative, and untheosophical-- that is clearly visible to others while invisible to those who express it. (Scorn of heretical Theosophists was expressed by several people on your list before I unsubscribed.) > Given the consistent nature of this reaction, though, I can > appreciate why esoteric groups are formed, where things can > be talked about where they won't bring immediate misunderstanding > and offense to others. This would be "going underground". There is a self-fulfilling prophecy here, which is really sad to me. You start out by telling your fellow-Theosophists, "I have a deeper appreciation of these teachings than you do, a stronger commitment, a fuller comprehension, and I am constantly aware of just how lacking you, my fellow-Theosophists, are in these qualities." So of course, your fellow-Theosophists say "You arrogant bastard, go to hell." And then you say "That just proves how right I was about your spiritual inadequacy." Unless the cycle is broken, an esoteric group is probably the only setting in which your approach to Theosophy won't constantly generate the offense in others which you find so incomprehensible. Eldon, I hate flaming like this, and am sorry to drag down the level of group discourse by pointing these things out. But the passive-aggressive way you have of attacking your fellow-Theosophists and then playing innocent is so infuriating, that perhaps an openly aggressive response is the only skillful means to wake you up to what you are doing. Your pissed-off brother, Paul From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 1 19:33:39 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 14:33:39 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Elitism or Esotericism In-Reply-To: <199608011854.OAA19402@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > You would have to know people intimately to judge whether or > not they are "on the Path." But you seem to take the position > I am not sure how anyone, can know if anyone else in "on the Path" even if one knows the person however intimately. Is it possible that even a person who is "on the Path" -- however it may be defined, not consciously know that he/she is on the Path. Also one could be deluded that one is on the Path. If a person belives (or knows for himself or herself) that he/she is on the Path, I am not going to argue. Each person has their own right to believe or know that they know. But when it comes to question of trying to determine someone is on the path, I think there are very practical problems. I for myself do not know if I am on the Path or not. Personally, it does not matter to me as I did not join the TS looking for personal spiritual progress. My 2-1/4 cents worth ( 2 cents adjusted for inflation!). _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 20:05:50 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 16:05:50 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma Message-Id: <960801200549_76400.1474_HHL60-4@CompuServe.COM> > Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >manifestation? Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born each time. The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation. > Let us assume the standpoint >of the human monad. It manifests as a personality, has its experiences, >and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. It stores what it has >learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. >The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, >forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new >environment it is going to manifest in, etc. This is the typical exoteric view of reincarnation, but not what was taught by HPB. The human monad is reborn each time. The "aroma" of each life is stored, not in or by the human monad, but by and in the atma-buddhi. If you look at it as body, soul, and spirit, then only the spirit survives and reincarnates, forming a new soul and new body each time. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 20:05:31 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 16:05:31 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: reincarnation Message-Id: <960801200530_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM> > ... This dipping out and pouring back describes the >relation of a given animal to its group-field. A given animal cannot function >independently of its group-field. The idea of Pat the dog being equated to a cup of water is too close to the CWL/AB teaching (or mis-teaching) of group souls to suit me. I prefer G de P and others who suggest that Pat the dog is as unique an individual as Jerry Schueler or Bee Brown. Pat won't come back, but then neither will Jerry or Bee. But their spirit will return in a new form. If animals can't funtion independently from their "group-field" then humans can't either. The chief difference between an animal and a human is that the human is much more full of himself. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 20:05:45 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 16:05:45 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: What's next in the movement Message-Id: <960801200544_76400.1474_HHL60-3@CompuServe.COM> >R.I.> >I'm afraid you get to trump me in this little side thread--since I do not yet >have enough inner certainty about the "devachan" to even say that it exists, >much less to say anything about what one is able to view or not view there >without a brain. Didn't mean to trump you, Richard. But my inner certainty here is pretty high. I equate the Theosophical devachan with the Tibetan bardo, and have found the teachings to be very similar. They also dovetail closely with my own experiences, and so, while not 100%, my certainty here could be called "reasonably high." When the brain goes, we lose the ability to think logically (thus the illogic of most dreams), but sounds and images are still with us. They are automatic or spontaneous and thus could be called karmic. > Would the image itself ~be~ the state of consciousness? Well, > I suppose in a certain sense you could think of it that way if you >wanted to. Lets just say that the image expresses our state of conscious. It is one of many possible manifestations of it. > However, >what about if you were sated, just having finished eating five gallons of the >stuff, and then formed the same image? What "state of consciousness" would >the image be now? Wouldn't it just be a neutral "epi-phenomenon" or just >plain "phenomenon" produced by the physical brain? Obviously the "state of consciousness" is more than just the image. Its accompanying emotional tone is also a factor. The same image can be charged with different affects--either attractive or repulsion, or neither (neutral). And, I am not at all certain that the brain "produces" any phenomena at all, in the sense that thoughts and images are fed by the brain, but are not necessarily produced by it. What if thoughts are expressions of images, and that images or signs are expressions of symbols, which in turn are expressions of eternal and universal archetypal realities? The brain, if such an assumption is granted, would then only be a perceiver, not a creator. In other words, what if the mind is only a device that consciousness uses to perceive pre-existing thoughts and emotions at the kama-manas level? What if the body is only a device that consciousness uses to perceive physical objects? >No, if it were not for the devachan trump card, I would stick to my guns and >say that inner images do not exist independent of, and are not able to be >perceived in the absence of, the physical brain and that particular states of >consciousness are not necessarily associated with any "quality" or "content" >of image. This appears to be a very materialistic view, and is even against Jungian thought not to mention Theosophical insight. The neonate, for example, sees images very well with only a very undeveloped brain. All animals see, and respond, to inner imagery, many with relatively undeveloped brains. There is scientific speculation that even the fetus dreams and is affected by its mother's images. People with brain damage of any and every degree still see, and respond to, images. People pronounced brain dead and then revived sometimes report near-death experiences filled with imagery. I have a high certainty that the one thing we do take with us after death is our images. Perhaps this is because I see the entire universe as a manifestation of duality. Because of this perception, I see a subject and object relationship existing from the very highest cosmic planes. I have also detected significant content differences at each level of imagery as consciousness descends into time, space, and form. I can have a dream, for example, which may or may not contain emotional content. If so, I can reasonable assume I am somewhere on the astral plane. If not, I can reasonable assume I am somewhere on the mental plane. So far, this has been a pretty good litmus test. >(Also, it is hard for me to think that Platonic archetypes--e.g., the >"general picture" of a chair--really qualify as "images" since they do not >have the "particularity" necessary to "view" them in any way. On second >thought . . . perhaps that is the basis for our seeming disagreement: > ~viewing~ images vs. ~holding~ archetypes. Who knows?) I agree that an archetypal symbol is not an image per se. Rather, they are the sources of all images. We see an image, but it is coming to our consciousness from the symbol of an unconscious archetype. In former times we would have said that one of the gods or goddesses was talking to us, or that God sent us an omen. When we see an image or sign, we usually understand what it means. When we see a symbol, we have an intuitive feeling about it, but find it difficult to adequately put the meaning into words. In dreams we often see symbols directly. When we do so, we recall them after waking because they seem meaningful to us somehow. >Yes, I might even stick to my guns to the extent of admitting that in some >ways I am not usympathetic with Rudolph Steiner's position that only the >lower order of mystic is communicated with by means of visual forms, while >the higher mystic apprehends Reality without any symbolic disguises whatever. >. . . I agree with this if we accept that "lower mystic" addresses the lower 4 cosmic planes, and that "higher mystic" addresses the highest 3. The borderline between the two, of course, is the Abyss, and crossing over this puppy is what separates the lower mystic or Chela from the higher mystic or Adept. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 20:05:34 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 16:05:34 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Borderlines Message-Id: <960801200534_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> >>Does not seem to be true. The borderline between the rupa and the arupa >>is somewhere in the middle of mental plane, so even manas (higher >>subplanes of the mental) is in the arupa, not to speak about buddhi. Jerry S: You are obviously speaking here of the CWL/AB Model. But I think that even here the separation at the mental plane level has only to do with our thoughts, which turn into formless ideas. Anyway, it all depends on the model we want to use. But the Abyss, the demarcation between the upper 3 and lower 4 planes, is generally believed to separate the form (rupa) from the formless (arupa) worlds. This is sometimes called the Great Outer Abyss to distinquish it from the lesser or inner Abyss located between the 4th and 5th subplanes of the mental plane. The Great Outer Abyss addresses the macrocosm, while the inner Abyss between higher and lower manas addresses the microcosm. >As Jerry is using Kabbalist (or Qabalist) terminology, I am jumping in >here to kind of agree with Maxim (I think). In the full system of the >Kabbalist "Jacob's Ladder" the "causal plane" would relate to the >Briatic world. That which is subject to imagery would be present in the >lower half of Briah, which "overlaps" the upper part of Yetzirah >("higher astral") but the upper part of Briah cannot contain any kind of >imagery. The "Abyss" symbolism belongs to the "single tree" version >promulgated by the Golden Dawn, but disappears when the fuller version >is known and used. There would be a kind of "borderline," to use >Maxim's term, at Tiphareth in Briah. > The use of the 4 Kabbalistic worlds is another model altogether. But the junction of each is nonetheless a Ring-Pass-Not. >Sorry folks for the technical stuff, but I do have to read a lot of >Indian and sanskrit terminology - why shouldn't you suffer a bit as well Agreed. Its something that we all need to dip into sooner or later. Jerry S. Member, TI From theos@sure.net Thu Aug 1 21:09:07 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608012109.OAA22541@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: In Reply, Huh Huh I'll try to explain a little better, as it appears that I did not come across well last time, based on the return comments from alan. >>had to step in here, as the waters appear a little like the Ganges (Turbid >>and full of disease!) > >.. a very unfriendly comment. Not unfriendly, but pointed. Many of the comments you pointed to were completely in line with old terminology which, from my view, are posessed with many errors, and potential problems for others. When one sees a painful situation, one try's to remidy it. Not being overly experienced in either tact or gracefullness (a condition rather common with several of us here), I simply try to state opinions of things "As I see them." >Why "assume" anything? Any "Theory" is an assumption. If you try to make a model without full understanding of the principles, you result in making a false theory which makes an "Ass" out of "YOU" (the people that accept the theory) and "ME" (the expounder of said theory). Example: the 'Protyle' of Dr. Crokes(?) which proved to nothing more than elemental sulfur. I think the old lady got a thousand miles worth of laughter off of that one. > it is more likely that, due to pre-programmed vibrations from >>Parents, Siblings, Relatives, etc..that you attract these "Shells" to you >>only to play back their memories as your own...Ponder on this one before >>getting too deep in this pit. Next time you might claim to be Edgar Allen >>Poe, and..... > >Given your example, you are right, but who is getting into any pit? >There are a great many assumptions in your own post here! This was supposed to be a witty attempt at a pun. "The Pit and the Pendulum" was a story which I was referring to. This was also the reason for including "Edgar Allen [Alan] Poe. We really must be a little more light hearted. The "Pit" could also be the past-life scenario we were talking about (and it appeared that you did believe yourself to be one Ex-WW1 Soldier [would that have been a pilot by chance?]), or it could be the topic of the story (which I think was written by Edgar Allen Poe, however mistaken I might be about this point.) > My WWI experience is documented, and contains >many elements I could not have possibly known beforehand, but which were >verified by research after the experience. So although it *could* have >been a "quick return" reincarnation, it does not follow that it was. Any detail can be pulled from the Kama-Rupa, including exact coordinates for buried treasure, names of others from a platoon of soldiers, even pillow talk. Such details would be left behind, and accessable. I personally refer to these "SPOOKS" as floating "Recording Tapes (Read-Only)." They only need to be brought into contact with a player that has a sutable playback mechanism (as do most mediumistic individuals, like yourself) to have the grand total of their past histories presented. The accuracy, needless to say, would be extraordanary, provided the Spook is not breaking up, and getting disoriented. >>2) that the animal kingdom is advancing faster than we are > >This is ridiculous - how on earth do you deduce such an assumption from >my post? In Response, You stated in an earlier post: 1. Life evolves "upward" from the lower kingdoms to the higher, so that at some (undefined) point "lower" animals incarnate for the first time as humans. >3. Also against this view, if new humans are appearing all the time, >*and* it takes those who are on the wheel of rebirth vast ages to get >off, there has to come a time when due to the slow progress of human >beings, there will be no room to move on the planet. So, if (a) Lower animals are incarnating as humans, and (b) "Due to the slow progress of human evolution, there will be no room on this planet", then the animal kingdom (of a quantity X) are becomming human faster than the human kingdom (Quantity Y) is becomming Deva, therefore since X > Y (according to your statements) my deduction of your statement is very much affirmed. Perhaps you can provide a restatement to clarify your views, which I feel limits the human kingdon to Genus "Homo" (by using Darwinian concepts) rather than noting the difference between Animals and Mankind, which is not subject to "Physical" definitions. If it were, are you possibly related to that individual in HPB's office that we've made such a fuss about (you know, the furry one in the coat :} >>If mankind was not moving forward, how would one explain the growth in >>psychic ability on as mass scale (which is an opening of the mind to the >>forces of the other realms, or "Awakening the Dreamer") > >Could you provide evidence to support this assertion? I for one do not >see any. This was meant to be a question, however, the following logic may help. If mankind is developing Psychic abilities at a faster rate than in past time period, then something must be happening to the human race. Therefore we must attempt to understand what is happening. Psychic abilities are "Powers LATENT in mankind", correct? If these LATENT powers are becomming MANIFEST, wouldn't it indicate that a change is occuring? And if we are supposed to be Opening (like a lotus blossom), wouldn't this be viewed as advancement. As far a "Evidence" is concerned, take a trip to your local magazine store and read the journals. Practically everyone is being told "You Are Psychic" with evidence to back up the allegation. This is tandamount to, in the 1860's, everyone being told that they are "Sensitives", which most obviously would not be the case. You can claim that we aren't advancing, but the problem is that mankind is not measure by physical counts. If we remember statments about such things as the height of humans increasing, and take it out of the Materialistic interpretation (which is so prevalent), perhaps this height increase is GROWTH into the higher realms while maintaining out ROOTS in the Physical realm. Perhaps our 6th sub race might be taller still, and in fact is very much so. You (alan) said: "As defined in our teachings" does not tell me who the "we" of "our" are. Most of the above does not resonate with me, or is expressed in a manner I cannot follow." If I am writing on a theosophical bullitin board, I am referring to "we"/"Our" as Theosophist (in a general term) without trying to identify individual source. I am a fellow of the T.S., and do try to explain things in theosphical terms. If things are not written in a form you can follow, I will try to accomidate you, however, if it does not "Resonate" with you, then you must open your awareness to be able to perceive what is meant in a given section of text. Personally, a fine theosophist as yourself (a self-proclaimed expert in psychic phenomina, SPOOKS, and other such things) who expounds Theosophy International on every post should have these capabilities well developed by this time (Or is all this "Psychic Ability" and "Experience" of yours a Humbug, and nothing more exciting than the talk of astral spooks resonating through the ethers of the internet)[my apologies for sounding harsh or undignified, but I feel that, that until we gain better control of our Kamic selves, including listening to anything that "Floats" by as a Guru or Angel, that we should be cautious with any opinions we accept as true.] >>I expect Mr. Bain's next post to >>be something on the order of "I only chewed in self-defence, but I never >>swallowed." >I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I was simply drawing an allegory between you as "Draco" (the dragon in "Dragonheart"), which I thought might be humerous and/or flattering. When Drago was accused of eating a knight, he made this comment. By the way, Dragons like Draco, as presented in this film, are perfect allegories for Devas (Devs, or Devils.) Also the only diference between Angels or Devils (both are Devas of sorts) with that one is on the right hand path while the other is on the left. James P.S. I hope this post helps steady your legs in the depths, from which you said "I can't fathom." And of course I don't consider any of your posts as attacks, merely a friendly joust. Oh, for another quote from Dragonheart (I know how cultured we all are on this list): (Scene) The knight is in the jaws of the Dragon, about 20 feet off the ground. His sword is placed upward into the head of the Dragon, however he can move it no further. Neither opponent can move, as the other would gain the advantage required to slay the other. Knight: "Your jaw comes down, and my sword comes up...right into your brain." Draco: "Your sword comes up, and my Jaws come down...right into YOU..." And on it continues... From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 1 21:37:26 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:37:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Borderlines In-Reply-To: <960801200534_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960801200534_76400.1474_HHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes > The use of the 4 Kabbalistic worlds is another model >altogether. But the junction of each is nonetheless a Ring-Pass-Not. Not as I see it. Did I ever send you my "Keys to Kabbalah" - ? I can e-mail text files, but they are not very helpful without the diagrams. If you are willing to splash out $20, I can send you a snail copy (printed to order, you see). Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 1 21:38:54 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:38:54 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: reincarnation In-Reply-To: <960731152055_589291492@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960731152055_589291492@emout09.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes > >Richard Ihle writes> >God made you write this to give everyone a perfect example of how the grand >systems of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis may have come into being. Let's hear it for God! [Loud applause] Alan :-\ --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 1 21:30:01 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:30:01 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Elitism and Esotericiam In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , JRC writes >On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: >> >> You can't take a group of very independent, feisty, intellectual and >> passionately spiritual people, who have, for the most part, found their own >> spiritual path, straight-jacket them into a philosophy and funnel them into a >> system. If you try, they are going to run like you-know-what to somewhere >else. > >Yes! And not because they aren't "ready" for some elevated truth ... but >perhaps precisely because they *are*. -JRC > > Well said, you two! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 1 21:48:57 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:48:57 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Not Alan on reincarnation & karma In-Reply-To: <960801200549_76400.1474_HHL60-4@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 I guess you pressed the "Reply" button: none of the quotes is mine! Alan In message <960801200549_76400.1474_HHL60-4@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >> Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >>consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >>manifestation? > Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born each time. >The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which >puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation. > >> Let us assume the standpoint >>of the human monad. It manifests as a personality, has its experiences, >>and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. It stores what it has >>learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. >>The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, >>forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new >>environment it is going to manifest in, etc. > This is the typical exoteric view of reincarnation, but not >what was taught by HPB. The human monad is reborn each time. >The "aroma" of each life is stored, not in or by the human monad, >but by and in the atma-buddhi. If you look at it as body, soul, and spirit, >then only the spirit survives and reincarnates, forming a new soul >and new body each time. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 1 21:24:43 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:24:43 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Elitism or Esotericism In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960801095045.0069748c@mail.imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.32.19960801095045.0069748c@mail.imagiware.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >observe that >a majority seem ready to believe almost anything and to be >finding the whole experience of being in a T.S. like joining a >club. This is radically different than a real spiritual practice, >which I'll again say *can* be found with Theosophy. You can say that again! (and I expect you will) Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Aug 1 22:03:42 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 18:03:42 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608012203.SAA02113@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Elitism or Esotericism In-Reply-To: ; from "m.k. ramadoss" at Aug 1, 96 3:37 pm According to m.k. ramadoss: > > > > I am not sure how anyone, can know if anyone else in "on the Path" even > if one knows the person however intimately. Is it possible that even a > person who is "on the Path" -- however it may be defined, not consciously > know that he/she is on the Path. Also one could be deluded that one is on > the Path. I stand corrected. You are quite right. > > I for myself do not know if I am on the Path or not. Personally, it does > not matter to me as I did not join the TS looking for personal spiritual > progress. In some sense we all are; at least that's my assumption. So the question isn't "am I or am I not on the Path" but rather "in what sense am I on the Path and in what sense am I not?"-- not that the question had ever bothered me before, but since you bring it up it makes a good koan. Cheers PJ From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Thu Aug 1 22:12:20 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:12:20 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960801170207_72724.413_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sy ... BTW, I'm gonna do my damndest to come to the St. Louis meeting - possibly w/ Terry W. -JRC From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Aug 1 20:11:05 1996 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 09:11:05 +1300 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <32010F59.3C11@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Vitvan's URL References: <960801160257_72723.2375_FHP48-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > Bee: > >And the books by Vitvan > >http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvan/html > > Tried reaching this URL. It did not work for me, but this one did: > > http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvanam.htm > > - Ann E. Bermingham Thanks for that. I have the site bookmarked so I seem to have left a bit out. I would be interested in your comments if in due course you read some of his stuff. I am surprised at myself for the interest I seem to have taken in his teachings as I was in my comfort zone with GdeP at the moment. I am reading away with highlighter in one hand and pencil in the other and the fact that it is stuff printed out on A4 paper lends itself to much scribbling on in the margins and that in itself is fun. I can find what I am looking for as I have written it by the paragraph concerned. Bee From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Thu Aug 1 21:51:52 1996 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 10:51:52 +1300 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <320126F8.60DC@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: reincarnation References: <960801200530_76400.1474_HHL60-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > ... This dipping out and pouring back describes the > >relation of a given animal to its group-field. A given animal cannot function > >independently of its group-field. > > The idea of Pat the dog being equated to a cup of water is too > close to the CWL/AB teaching (or mis-teaching) of group > souls to suit me. I prefer G de P and others who suggest that Pat > the dog is as unique an individual as Jerry Schueler or Bee Brown. > Pat won't come back, but then neither will Jerry or Bee. But their > spirit will return in a new form. If animals can't funtion independently > from their "group-field" then humans can't either. The chief > difference between an animal and a human is that the human > is much more full of himself. > > Jerry S. > Member, TII apologise for taking something out of context. It didn't give the correct impression. His 'system of thought' about the Wisdom is different than what we are used to and I find that a breath of new air might expand my vision of how it all works. I see the Wisdom as a big 'pie' like they have in visual % presentations of facts. It is cut into a number of pieces because in itself, it is too huge and complicated to be fully understood at this time in our evolution. Each slice is a way of trying to understand the whole and these slices form the various methods humanity had developed to make sense of the 'whole'. Theosophy is one such slice and it all depends which slice one is viewing the 'whole' from as to how one's ideas are formulated. If a person prefers Theosophy and feels that slice has the most icing on it, then he/she will tend to stay with that line of thought because it is not possible to embrace the whole pie or even more than another slice or two. In this lifetime there isn't time for me to really try to understand more than the slice I have chosen and have a little dabble in one or two others to see if they shed any more light on the slice I have settled on. I think we need to understand that the slice we prefer is not the only one and that Theosophy is saying that we should be able to discuss the 'whole' from the view of any of the other slices without the tendency to denigrade the ones we do not prefer or have knowledge of. I will remind myself not to get out of context again as it is not a fair to do that to others or the method of thinking involved. I hope little Pat can swim :-) Bee From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Aug 1 23:01:41 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 19:01:41 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608012301.TAA11018@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: ; from "JRC" at Aug 1, 96 6:15 pm According to JRC: > > Sy ... > BTW, I'm gonna do my damndest to come to the St. Louis meeting - > possibly w/ Terry W. > -JRC > Same here! And my darndest usually gets me there. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 00:31:59 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:31:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: TI monthly info Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL comprises men and women who, of their own free choice, subscribe to the spirit of the three objects first formulated by the Theosophical Society, but in a more up-to-date form based on suggestions by members of the internet community, and expressed thus: 1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color. 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion, theosophy, philosophy, and the scientific method, according to individual ability and inclination." 3. To investigate mysteries of nature and unrealized human potential and abilities, with an underlying respect for all life." THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary network, whereby it is sufficient to declare one's sympathy and/or allegiance to the three objects, and to be registered as having done so. No belief system is required - nor assumed to be held - by any member. All have the right to choose, without trace of coercion, the path by which they seek understanding. There are no fees, no subscriptions, although voluntary donations and/or contributions could be made to specific projects or even individuals for particular and specified purposes. As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not need rules, whether anyone participates in or supports any such activity is an entirely personal matter. We hope to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations, as also with like-minded individuals. ------------------------------- To join Theosophy International, send an e-mail message asking to be registered to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk or give your name and other details you wish to share to whoever introduced you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "TI" has 41 members in ten countries. Alan Bain IMPORTANT NOTE: Although TI members are active on the various theosophy mailing lists (theos-l, theos-buds, etc., and which are maintined by John Mead (himself a TI member), none of the theos mailing lists is owned or exclusively reserved for members of Theosophy International, Nor is TI a part of any other theosophical organisation. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From euser@euronet.nl Fri Aug 2 00:45:35 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:45:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608020045.CAA28716@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Vitvan's URL Hi, Vitvan's URL is: http://www.irdg.com/pc93/vitvan.htm (I didn't check the one Ann Bermingham has mentioned, but the above one is the URL I mention in my New Age FAQ) This will point you to the home page of the School of the Natural Order and give you access to many articles: Syntheses between New Age, Gnosis & science. Esoteric & transpersonal psychology; initiations ('crossings'); Tree of life; comments on the yoga sutras of Patanjali; non-Aristotelian view/logic; general semantics, perception, reality, etc. This is a quality site IMO, although I haven't studied it all, Martin From euser@euronet.nl Fri Aug 2 00:45:38 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:45:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608020045.CAA28721@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Paul's deconstruction of Eldon's comments - another approach Hi, Let me try to give an alternative way of phrasing the controverse between Paul Johnson and Eldon Tucker: In my view Eldon seems to operate from the following premise (P): (P): Theosophy as given by HPB, Judge and G de P is true (or at least is basically a sound, profound & worthwile philosophy that contains many, many truths and maybe just a couple of slight errors) Let us denote Theosophy with the letter T. In Aristotelian logic Eldon's thinking can be expressed thus: T is true. Hence follows: ~T (not T) is not true, hence: false. So, everyone who formulates an idea that is not in direct agreement with Theosophical teachings has a wrong idea! (ie, in this scheme of logic). Interestingly, there are other schemes of logic in which the above conclusions do not hold true. I'm not a student of logic, so I will phrase my point in common terms: In non-Aristotelian logic one views things in a very nuanced way, because there are so many facets, aspects, characteristics to people, things, nature, etc., that to single out some of these and take these to be descriptive of the *whole* thing, human being, etc. is to make an enormous blunder. My conclusion is this: even if (P) holds, even then there can be many teachings, maybe phrased in different jargon, that are complementary to Theosophy, rather than contradictory (or maybe there is even a large overlap of ideas with Theosophy in these other teachings). I will quote a small part of Vitvan's writings on semantics and comment a little bit on that. (Note that I didn't copy the section on semantic blockage, semantic response, intensionality, extensionality, etc, although these are equally relevant to this discussion. It would make this posting too long. Interested persons can look the material up at the Vitvan URL I mentioned in another posting just before or after this one on theos-l) "NON-ARISTOTELIAN DISCIPLINE Remember: (1) There are infinite numbers of gradations, or degrees, respecting any given quality, property, etc. " Indeed. Regarding Theosophical teachings one can say that these are very fragmentary, and rather non-detailed. This is important to keep in mind because that would encourage us to open our minds to see different, complementary aspects or qualities of reality and take points of view from others seriously. These other views may contain aspects about reality not taken into account by Theosophy. "(2) We never can know all about any given event, fact, factor, etc. " A humble approach which leaves plenty of room for syntheses, new discoveries, new insights, etc. "(3) When a statement sets forth that any 'thing' is so, or so, it is not. " A particular good reminder not to think that one knows things for sure, for once and for all. I'm beginning to like this one :) "These three statements might be referred to as the trilogy in the Non-Aristotelian discipline, or three tenets of extensionality. " "We live by the registry of energy frequencies; that is, every amount of our existence we live in what we describe as a world of energy. The limited registry of those wave-lengths and frequencies of photons, electrons, etc., gives us the consciousness of a quality such as 'cold,' 'red,' 'sour,' etc. Relative to each individual's limited range of registering these frequencies there could be said to be an infinite range of wave-lengths and frequencies not registered. Many many lines of force are operative in every event or experience which we do not comprehend as 'part' of the event, experience, etc." "Owing to the structure of our sense organs, nervous systems, etc., it is impossible for any individual to register all of these frequencies. So it is that when we observe a given 'thing' or 'object' we never can see, understand or grasp all of the characteristics pertaining or ascribed thereto. More characteristics are left out of consideration than are considered. The same is true respecting the factors of any given event. A multiplicity of influences culminate or focalize in that which we label an event. It is impossible for a person to be conscious of all of these influences. That is why a great teacher said, "Your judgements are not true." "Judge no man," etc. To properly evaluate a given event we would have to know all of the influences so culminating. " "Those who have studied General Semantics under the personal teaching of Count Alfred Korzybski will remember him saying, "Whenever you are asked a question, invariably say, 'I do not know, let us ascertain the facts.'" "Concerning the third tenet listed above, we quote from Language in Action by Irving J. Lee. "Have you ever sought to find what anything or anyone really was? Were you able to settle the question? Or did the discussion end in futility, with no answer the decisive one? That such a question cannot be answered finally one way or another, except by the intervention of some authority or by arbitrary agreement, will be clear once we have analyzed what is asked by the question. We shall locate the source of the difficulty in the forms of the verb 'to be.' The assumptions underlying the uses of the little 'is' and 'was' will be found at the heart of the confusion. " "At least two uses of the verb (to be) are fundamental and necessary in English." "1. As an auxiliary in the formation of tenses in English. Thus, 'he is reading;' 'we are studying;' 'they have been fighting;' etc. " "2. As a synonym for existence. When someone says, 'I am here,' or 'The Capitol of the U.S. is at Washington, D.C.,' the verb in each case acts as a substitute for 'exist,' which may in turn replace it, preserving or even emphasizing the original sense. " "At least two other uses of the verb we find false-to-fact and instrumental in making for confusions and misevaluations. " "3. When the 'is' leads to the identification of different levels of abstraction, implying in the utterance that one 'thing' can exist as another. The use has this form. 'Man is an animal.' 'Joe is a radical.' 'Having done that she is a sinner.' The 'is' of identity serves to link two nouns, obscuring the differences between silent and verbal levels. This 'is' serves as a synonym for 'may be called or classified as.' "4. When the 'is' leads to the predication of 'qualities.' Here we make the assumption that characteristics exist in 'things,' whereas they are to be found only in the relation of an observer to what is observed. This 'is' covers up the fact that impressions arise in us, although we project our impressions on the 'things' whenever we say, 'The sergeant was heroic to the last.' 'The music was beautiful.' 'He is more charitable.' The 'is' of predication brings together nouns with adjectives, implying that the 'heroic,' 'beautiful,' 'charitable' are somehow in the sergeant, the music and the man. This 'is' serves as a synonym for 'appears' - to me, him, them, etc." Practice: In any given circumstance, context of situation, happening, etc., remember the above trilogy pertaining to extensionality; and whenever you are asked a question, remember to say, "I do not know, let us ascertain the facts." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End of quoted material Martin From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri Aug 2 02:08:14 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 19:08:14 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608020208.AA20398@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: historic Jesus Hi Abrantes, You wrote: >Continuing the discussion that Toldoth, and also HPB, when >referring to Jesus as living one century before Pilate, I argued >the pauline epistle 1Tm. I already mentioned that this epistles >was recogniced by the first canons of the church, and the >discussion was around other books such as Revelations and >epistle of James, but never around 1 Timoty. I also refered to >Paulicians that respect all paulines epistles. JHE That 1Tim was recognized by the early church fathers may very well be so, especially if you keep in mind that in those days the words of Paul received in a vision was considered just as authentic as words written in his own hand. This is why I rejected your suggestion in an earlier post that I was accusing early church members of forgery. However, the widely held rejection of the authenticity of 1Tim comes from modern scholarship--not from what was traditionally accepted or not accepted in the days of the early church fathers. The early Church Fathers may have for their own theological reasons accepted as genuine Epistles that under scientific scrutiny are shown to be false. ABRANTES >Even herectics as Marcion include the epistles of Paul as Holy >Writ. Marcion produced his own canon without OT and using only a >heavily edited Luke and some pauline epistles. HPB at book III, >chapter III (start 116, end 145) page 143 says that Marcion >refused ALL gospels, what is wrong....HPB some lines before >refered to Tertulian (Adv Marcion) and Epiphanius (Panarion) >that accused Marcion to adulter Luke, so Marcion recogniced a >Luke edition of gospel...What pauline epistles Marcion did >recognice?? HPB didn't say. In another posting I refers to some >comments of Dr. Lardner about Marcion canon. JHE HPB does quote Adv. Marc. that Tertullian and Epiphanius accused Marcion of "...erasing passages from the Gospel of Luke which were never in Luke at all." (160). But on the same page of ISIS, HPB also cites the author of SUPERNATURAL RELIGION who argues that Marcion was accused "falsely." So, I see no contradiction here when HPB on p. 162 says that "Marcion...recognized no other gospels than a few Epistles of Paul." So it appears that in this case, HPB would have rejected Dr. Lardner's comments in your other posting. This is because Dr. Lardner's comments assume the veracity of Tertullian's and Epiphanius' accusations, where HPB argues them to be false. HPB may recognize Dr. Lardner as a "competent scholar" as you say in you other post, but that does not mean that HPB considered him infallable. It is not uncommon in HPB's writings to quote a scholar as an authority on one page, and rip apart that same authority's arguments on another. In this case, HPB's position is very clear that Marcion would not have accepted the Gospel of Luke in his canon. A look at Dr. Lardner's sources of information would probably throw more light upon this issue. ABRANTES Probably Marcion only recognized Luke, because he could not refuse a gospel that was considered as the gospel of Paul. Even 2Tm4:11 and Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke, as Paul`s disciple. JHE As I showed above, HPB's position is that Marcion recognized no Gospels--whether they be Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This leaves the question of which Epistles of Paul did Marcion recognize, and what form were they in. It is unlikely that he would have known them in the form that we have them today. Of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul, only the letter to the Romans, the two to the Corinthians and the one to the Galatians are universally accepted as genuine by modern Biblical scholars. On the other hand, these four letters make a body of literature that is longer than the other ten letters put together. If these four are the Epistles recognized by Marcion, then he could not have accepted the references to Luke in the two Epistles you have speculated upon above. ABRANTES >Marcion recognized Luke, and Luke referred to Pilate 3:1, 23:1 >and Herode the great 1:5 and his son Herod 23:7. So, Marcion >rejects Toldoth that referred to Jesus as living one century >before. JHE I have already shown the flaws in your above argument: Marcion, according to HPB did not recognize the Gospel of Luke, and considers the accusations of Tertullian and Epiphanius against Marcion to be false. If you think about it, T. and E. accusing Marcion of erasing from Luke, passages that are really in Matthew is a very strange accusation. Even your quoted commentator on Lardner's commentary of this incident, attributes it to Tertullian's falty memory: "The third instance referred to by Lardner probably occurs at the end of chap. ix of this same book iv, where Tertullian again mistakes Matt. v:17 for a passage of Luke, and charges Marcion with expunging it..." Regarding your linking of the Toldoth to Marcion--I'm a bit concerned. I find no justification for this linking in HPB's arguments. Did you find such a link in HPB's writings? If so, where? For the most part, the Gnostics were not at all concerned with an historical Jesus, and I submit that the Toldolth would have been of little or no concern to Marcion one way or the other. It is the Roman Church that placed so much importance upon an historical resurrected Jesus. The Gnostics for the most part were more concerned with the salvation that comes through the knowledge and experience of the spirit of Christ. The Roman Church, on the other hand, was (and is) more concerned with salvation through a vicarious atonement from God that was made possible through the death of a man whom the Roman Church calls Jesus the Christ, son of God. The savior of the Gnostics, on the other hand, did not need to be located in any period in time or linked to any historical events. The Jews just kept records and tried to keep out of the way of the more politically powerful Christians. I must remind you for the third time that HPB writes about three Jesus: An historical Jesus; a biblical Jesus; and a theological Jesus. When HPB is referring to the Toldoth and the "Syrian heresies" where the "Original Christianity is to be found..." (137), she is talking about the historical Jesus. When she is discussing the arguments between the Gnostics and the church fathers, she is talking about the theological Jesus. When she is talking about passages from the Gospels and the Epistles, she is talking about the biblical Jesus. But sometimes she will discuss the biblical or the theological Jesus in order to throw more light upon the historical Jesus, or vice versa. For this reason, HPB requires a close reading in order to understand her points and which Jesus she is discussing. Another serious problem in reading HPB is that most readers know only of the biblical Jesus and assume that this is the only meaningful source of information about the historical Jesus. Therefore, the reader becomes confused when HPB writes from an entirely different point of view, where she represents the NT as being very deceptive concerning the historical Jesus. I hope this helps Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 1 06:20:52 1996 Date: 01 Aug 96 02:20:52 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: 7 Portals With 7 Keys to VOS Message-Id: <960801062052_74024.3352_BHT46-1@CompuServe.COM> I would like to discuss the excerpt: Blavatsky: Thou seest well, Lanoo. These portals lead the aspirant across the waters on "to the other shore". (7) Each Portal hath a golden key that openeth its gate; and these keys are: 1. DANA, the key of charity and love immortal. 2. SHILA, the key of Harmony in word and act, the key that counterbalances the cause and the effect, and leaves no further room for karmic action. 3. KSHANTI, patience sweet, that nought can ruffle. 4. VIRAGA, indifference to pleasure and to pain, illusion conquered, truth alone perceived. 5. VIRYA, the dauntless energy that fights [51] its way to the supernal TRUTH, out of the mire of lies terrestrial. 6. DHYANA, whose golden gate once opened leads the Narjol* {A Saint, an Adept.} toward the realm of Sat eternal and its ceaseless contemplation. 7. PRAJNA, the key to which makes of a man a God, creating him a Bodhisattva, son of the Dhyanis. (editted): Such to the Portals are the golden keys. Before thou canst approach the last, O weaver of thy freedom, thou hast to master these Paramitas of perfection - the virtues and sacrifice [53] the personal to SELF impersonal, and thus destroy the "path" between the two - Antaskarana. (9) voice will ask thee at thy first, at thy initial step: "prepared to answer Dharma, the stern law, whose ou complied with all the rules, O thou of lofty hopes?... . They have to be attuned to the Upadhyaya's mind - one with the Over-Soul FROM: Keith Price While trying to meditate on some of the ideas presented by Blavatsky in the VOS, I have tried to understand why we focus on the number 7 so much, particularly in regard to the 7 bodies as evidence of 7 levels of manifestation. The idea came to me of that the various planes, globes, bodies etc are separated in the way white light is separated into the colored spectrum in a prism. The seven colors show how the primal unitive white light is separated in space and time for our eyes by the prism. The goal of meditation is to provide a second prism developed in our own mind that will recombine the colors into white light. When this happens, we can cross the rainbow bridge or the anathakara into the higher unitve white light state of consciousness variously described as sat-chit-ananada, truth (being)- mind and bliss as our real state as one with the Master or Over-Soul The seven portals, keys, and the golden stairs help create the diamond "body" that can recombine the stopped down colors into there higher state of unity.. This might be the philosopher's stone so often hinted at. The stone that can transmute the base elements of the 7 planes to the spiritual gold of eternal value. Thus it takes a develpment or the uncovering of this inherent faculty through meditation. We then have access to akasha, ultimate complete wisdom beyond verbal thought. We are then in connection directly with the Voice of the Silence which becomes the Master. There seems to be a virture to balance every inherent vice in each of the bodies. !. Purity of the physcial body 2. Altruism in the emotional body 3. Slaying the tendency of the analytical mind to divide everything 4. Accessing the creative intuition 6. Meditation on wisdom beyond words 7. Linking them all to the will for compasionate loving service of evolution Each of the lower bodies can become a vehicle of the next higher and thus they are united to a single Will, rather than pulling oneself in 7 directions at once. Then one can become an active spiritual agent of the Real, as opposed to passive victim of the pull of the false, separated plane of illusion. Namaste Keith Price From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Aug 1 17:41:12 1996 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 13:41:12 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608011741.NAA01289@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 185 In-Reply-To: <199608011536.AA20051@vnet.net>; from "theos-roots@vnet.net" at Aug 1, 96 11:36 am To Keith-- Whoa! Aren't we going through the VOS part by part, and haven't we only had the first fragment posted? Your latest comment skips all the way to the third portion. Maybe I misunderstood the program? Cheers Paul From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 00:05:27 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:05:27 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: 1924 Convention Mime-Version: 1.0 From time to time in our Internet discussions, misgivings or curiosity has been expressed concerning the "E.S.", the Liberal Catholic Church, and Co-Freemasonry, especially with regard to the association of these bodies with the Adyar-based Theosophical Society. The following document from 1924 tells us that this is nothing new. Clearly, the Special Convention did not fully succed in obtaining all its objectives, though their desire for a National Council is close the the arrangement at present in force within the English Section. Alan Bain, 1 August 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL CONVENTION. The Theosophical Society In England, AGENDA: Under Rule 31 of the Rules of the National Society the following seven Lodges have demanded a Special Convention - Battersea and Clapham, Bow, Exeter, Gnostic, Leytonstone, London, and Reading. These Lodges have formed a "Special Convention Committee" for the purpose of securing concerted action in doing all that is possible to make the Convention a success, and in carrying on afterwards the work of renovation thereby initiated. On the 18th January, 1924, the Chairman of this Special Convention Committee handed to the Acting General Secretary of the National Society the following AGENDA, which the seven Lodges demanding the Special Convention had formally adopted, jointly and severally as the Business to be transacted thereat. Therefore these nine RESOLUTIONS, as they stand, will be presented for the decision of the National Society at the Special Convention, which probably will be held at the end of March in London. Due notice of the date will be sent, of course, to every Member by the General Secretary of the National Society. RESOLUTION No. 1. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND resolves that it re-affirms the democratic basis of the Constitution of the National Society, and the right of its Members to have a voice in the management of its affairs and the election of its Officials, and to discuss at the Annual Convention matters of business arising out of the General Secretary's Report. THAT this CONVENTION furthermore affirms the complete impartiality and neutrality of the Society in all matters concerning religion and politics, and that the Society had no connection, official or unofficial, with any religious or political Organization whatever. RESOLUTION No. 2. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND hereby registers its profound regret that the state of the Theosophical Society at large is so unsatisfactory, and that disharmony within it is so rampant, rendering the Society incapable of performing the three-fold function declared in its Objects. This SPECIAL CONVENTION attributes the paralysis of the Theosophical Society to the many grave errors of the Administration, its lack of courage in dealing with alleged delinquencies, and its reliance on autocratic and secret control, rather than on the cleansing democratic principles expressed in its Constitution and those of its component National Societies. This SPECIAL CONVENTION therefore resolves to appeal to the several National Societies in the above terms to throw off all secret control and to restore harmony by a reliance on the original democratic principles. RESOLUTION No. 3. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND requests the Administration to take immediately such steps as may be necessary to prevent in future any cause whatever being given to the public to associate the Society with any Sect, Cult, or Organization expounding and propagating particular teachings and beliefs, such as "The Liberal Catholic Church" and "The Order of the Star In The East", both of which are unfortunately at present associated and identified with the Theosophical Society to such an alarming extent that it will require continued effort for a considerable time on the part of the Administration and of all Lodges to counteract the injury which has already been done to the reputation of the Society. This Resolution must not be taken as casting any reflection whatever upon the two particular Sects named, and to which belong many earnest workers in our National Society, but as voicing the earnest wish of the Society to maintain before the public its good name for perfect tolerance of and absolute neutrality to all beliefs not denying Human Brotherhood. RESOLUTION No. 4. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND requests the National Council to frame, and make immediately operative, a Rule under which it shall be prohibited that any Office should be held in the National Society or its Lodges, by a Member who by pledges to any Organization is thereby rendered "not free" to carry out in an unbiassed and impartial manner the duties of an Official in the Theosophical Society, which is essentially a democratic one. In this connection this SPECIAL CONVENTION declares that the pledge of unquestioning loyalty to Mrs. Besant "for any Object which she declares to be the work of the Masters" renders any pledged member of her Secret Organization known as the "E.S." unsuitable for the holding of any office whatever in the Society, especially in view of the fact that she has laid down that loyalty to herself must take precedence of duty as a Lodge Official. To prevent misunderstanding or misrepresentation, this SPECIAL CONVENTION desires to declare unequivocally that this Resolution must not be taken in any way whatever to cast reflections upon the "E.S." or any other Organization, but solely as a necessary safeguard to prevent the National Society, or any of its Lodges, coming under secret control, as it is obvious that all of its Officials should be free from any restraint or control in the exercise of their respective duties in the National Society. RESOLUTION No. 5. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND earnestly requests the PRESIDENT of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY to establish, or to authorize the establishment of, a TRIBUNAL within the Society for the purpose of investigating and reporting upon several matters which are seriously affecting the good name of the Society, in order to make available for Members, both present and future, a trustworthy record of the actual facts in connection therewith while first-hand evidence be available, and thus to put an end to the many unpleasant rumours and statements which are causing so much uneasiness and loss of membership. This request to be regarded as not being in any sense an insinuation against any person or group of persons, but as providing the only possible means whereby unjust or malicious attacks can be satisf actorily refuted. THAT such a TRIBUNAL should be composed of Members of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY of undoubted impartiality who shall not belong to the Secret Group known as the "E.S.", or to "The Order Of The Star In The East", or to " The Liberal Catholic Church", or to any Body hampering freedom of thought or action in matters connected with The Theosophical Society , THAT it should consist of as many Sections as there are countries wherein to collect evidence, and THAT each Section should be empowered to interrogate personally, and to request sworn statements from, any Official or other Member of The Theosophical Society, as well as such other persons as might be willing to assist the TRIBUNAL in its efforts to arrive at the true facts about any matter which it might be investigating. That the personnel of the English Section of the TRIBUNAL shall be subject to the approval and acceptance of THE SPECIAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE which has organised this CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND. That the whole of the evidence collected by each Section of the TRIBUNAL shall be carefully preserved; THAT duly attested copies thereof shall be sent to every General Secretary; and THAT, together with any summarizations of the TRIBUNAL or any Section thereof, it shall be printed, and published at cost price, by the Theosophical Society as being a permanent record of first-hand evidence wherewith to meet and finally dispose of the numerous allegations, rumours, suspicions and accusations, which are seriously affecting the good name of the Society and exposing it to scorn in the eyes of the public to such an extent that often Members are compelled to avoid using the label "Theosophical" at meetings if they would gain a sympathetic hearing for teachings that their audiences are anxious to consider. By having available such a collection of reliable evidence any repetition of slanderous or unjust accusations could be immediately met, if necessary by prosecution for libel. THAT this TRIBUNAL shall be empowered to investigate all matters whatsoever which are productive of harm to The Theosophical Society as a whole. RESOLUTION No. 6. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND regrets to note that the General Secretary and Executive Committee, jointly or separately, in carrying on the administration of the National Society during their term of office have made many grave errors causing dissatisfaction and unrest, have failed repeatedly to observe the Rules of the Society, have allowed themselves to be swayed by external (and possibly secret) influences, and have committed the National Society to being a party, whether active or implied, to actions which call for its strong condemnation. RESOLUTION No. 7. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND declares the present method of electing Officials of the Society and the Members of the National Council to be unsatisfactory, and decides that it shall be immediately abolished. THAT the composition of the National Council shall be altered to consist of at least one representative from each Lodge and a proportional representation of unattached Members; THAT the General Secretary shall be elected by a postal ballot of the whole National Society; THAT the Rules of the National Society shall be revised, and the Rule which empowers the National Council to cancel any resolution passed at a Convention of the National Society shall be abolished. RESOLUTION No. 8. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND regrets to note an increasing tendency on the part of the Administration, in England and elsewhere, to use for controversial political ends and sectarian religious propaganda the Organization, Magazines and influence of the Society, which, by the nature of its Constitution and its declared Objects, aims at inculcating in its Members a desire to protect those ideals of Political Freedom and Religious Liberty which must be attained before a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD OF HUMANITY can be realised, and therefore of necessity must sedulously avoid in any way identifying itself with political questions or religious sects. THAT in particular it expresses its strong disapproval of the Administration of this National Society having permitted the Register of its Members and the Society's Offices and Staff being placed at the disposal of a Political Agent for the purpose of convening a public political meeting in London, and of having included in the published Programme of the last Annual Convention of this National Society a morning set apart for a "Devotional Meeting " taken by a priest of a particular religious sect. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION therefore requests the Administration of the National Society to take such steps as shall prevent the recurrence of such deplorable actions in the future. RESOLUTION No. 9. THAT this SPECIAL CONVENTION of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN ENGLAND hereby decides that the amount payable to Headquarters annually by Members shall be reduced from ten shillings to five shillings, as very many Lodges are unable to do the work they would like to owing to lack of funds. Issued by the SPECIAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE, 5, Tregunter Road, London, S.W.10. Printed by GEORGE WHITE, 396, King's Road, S.W.10 --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 23:58:46 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:58:46 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <3dmhlZA2YpAyEwmv@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: New List Mime-Version: 1.0 At the suggestion of John Mead, he and I have set up a list for the discussion of ways of promoting the objects and ethos of Theosophy International. This is something of a specialised purpose (like theos- news) and not intended for general theosophical discussion which is not TI-related. This is already well catered for by theos-l and theos-buds. The list is, like all the lists, unmoderated, and it is not necessary to be a member of Theosophy International to subscribe to it, which is done in the usual way. Send a message to listproc@vnet.net with no subject header and the single one-line message subscribe TI-L your name It is probably best to omit your sig file when subscribing. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 2 04:43:27 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 00:43:27 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960802004327_169994977@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Elitism or Esotericism Enter the Heretic The problem here is the idea that there is THE PATH. But the implication in that is that there is only one true path and all others are some way false. Yet one of the principle assumptions of theosophy is that all paths ultimately lead to the same end, some just meander more than others, but all are equally valid to their followers. This is not mere tolerance, it is a recognition that there is grain of truth in all spritual practice and for that reason (and I get to be serious now) we encourage the study of comparative religion, in the hope of finding those grains and the rare points of commonality, not in the hope of finding new ways to attack the unbelievers. In the final analysis, it does not matter if a person is on THE PATH. He or she is on a path and if that one does not work, well, we all have oodles of lifetimes to work it out. Chuck the Heretic From theos@sure.net Fri Aug 2 07:50:35 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 00:50:35 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608020750.AAA02617@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & Karma Perhaps I could provide my ideas, and see how well they float: Euser: >Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >manifestation? This is precisly what is presented, based on my reading/interpretation. The Manas is the Causal [Cause-al] body, which when manifestation is required causes a ray [or thread] to be emanated, which CAUSES the formation of: 1) Kama-Manas = Mental Body 2) Kama = Astral Body 3) Linga-Sarina = Etheric Double 4) Shula-Sarina = Physical Body This would point to the fact that the three-fold unit (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) is where the origin of manifestation occurs, from our point of view ("our" being the human life wave.) This, on a higher level, would still present itself as manas for that given level, this being in total agreement with HPB when she stated that "Universal Mind ever IS." Therefore, in restatement, MANAS most certainly DOES reincarnate, however it does have Atma and Buddhi along with it, in the same way that one has their Heart and Lung along with them when they decide to have a meal (which is consumed and processed by other organs in the body, most importantly the Stomach and Liver.) Jerry S. States that "Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born each time. The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation." The only difference here is that Jerry removes "Manas" from the Causal, making it Atma-Buddhi. I disagree with this since every model presented by every teaching that I've seen has the Noetic (or Mind) giving birth to the Psychic (or Kamic). Further, Manas is NOT the human mind, but Mind in total. The human mind is limited by the expression (or vehicle of expression) by which it is observed (in Kama.) This makes the human mind "Kama-Manas", not "Manas." This presentation of incarnation appears substancially the same as mine, but I'd like to see if it does to you as well: > Let me phrase this differently. Let us assume the standpoint >of the human monad. It manifests from the Causal Body, or 'Atma-Buddhi-Manas' >as a personality, the quarternary, as two pairs: Kama-Manas (Mental/Astral unit) Sarina (Physical w/ Etheric Double) >has its experiences, The physical incarnation >and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. The Sarina, this extraction taking (Traditionally) three days to complete. Afterwards, there is a period during which the individual may be considered 'In Vitro' in the Kama-Masic vehicle. This state is closely related to the dream state we expereince in life, however there are marked differences, most notibly that we are unconscious during this period, to the same degree that we consider a fetus to be unconscious prior to birth. After a period of time >It stores what it has >learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. Into the Manasic vehicle (the Causal body). This involves the sluffing-off of the Kama-manasic vehicle (Astral/Mental unit) as a form of "Afterbirth", at which point it becomes a Kama Rupa (or Astral Spook). The manasic vehicle now awaits a new oportunity to present itself for reincarnation to occur. Jerry apparently concurs with this when he states that "The "aroma" of each life is stored, not in or by the human monad, but by and in the [Causal Vehicle]. >The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, >forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new >environment it is going to manifest in, etc. Or as jerry says "The human monad is reborn each time." This process repeats ad-infinitum until "Release" is achieved, at which point the Atma-Buddhi-Manas is re-absorbed into the one-essence, which is considered the Monad (when individualized from the 'ALL') and Ayn-Soph when not individualized. In this model, the keynote is that the 'Causal Vehicle' can be likened to the Kumaras, which are eternal virgins, through which manifestation occurs albeit without a direct affect upon them. Manifestation, or rebirth, of the monad occurs through them, but the causal vehicle is not caused (directly) by the monad (on this level of manifestation). Using "Cosmogenesis" for an example of "As Above, So Below", this appears to be, at least on the surface a restatement of "The Ray shoots through the Virgin Egg [the Causal Vehicle, or Atma-Buddhi-Manas]; the ray causes the eternal egg [the ayn-sof] to thrill, and drop the non-eternal (periodical [or reincarnating]) germ [the Monad], which condenses into the world-egg [the quarternary, or the composite, which becomes the Mental, Astral, and Physical bodies] Using the above, I might present the possiblity that a) sub-races within Root-Races relate to Personas emitted from Manas b) Root Races within rounds relate to Manasic vehicles from Monads c) Rounds within Globes compare to Monads emitted from "Ayn Soph" Question, do you think that the 'Egoic Lotus' model of Alice Bailey would coorilate very well to this. She shows three trinities, each nested within another, with a round multi-faceted center: The center would be the Manifesting ego (or the Monad) The first trinity would be the Causal Body (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) The second trinity would be the Astral/Mental unit (plus Prana) The third trinity would be The Sarina (Linga/Shula, plus Prana) Max Heindel's coorilating model might be Center The Virgin Spirits First Trinity Divine/Life/Human spirit (as a group) Second trinity Soul (or Psyche from the greek) Third Trinity Body (et All) And this would therefore be in substantial agreement with Jerry when he says "If you look at it as body [sarina], soul [kama-manas], and spirit [causal], then only the spirit [causal vehicle, or Nous] survives and reincarnates, forming a new soul [Psyche] and new body each time. [remarks in square brackets are mine (JSY)] Do you think that the preceeding ideas are in substantial agreement with your studies and/or experience? James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. P.S. Alan, you state that "none of the quotes is mine!" Would you care to step into the room and present your views (and I promise to be a gentleman :) I would expecially like to hear from some of your "assistants" (Spooks or ?) in regard to where the system is in "Error", or is this in substancial agreement with you as well? From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Aug 2 12:39:06 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:39:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Books Needed Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I am looking for the following books by Ernest Wood: 1. Is this Theosophy ...? 2. Mind and Memory Training If anyone has a copy and wants to sell, please e-mail me _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss ramadoss@eden.com From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 12:48:38 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 08:48:38 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Bailey vs TS Message-Id: <960802124838_72723.2375_FHP60-1@CompuServe.COM> Recently Sy Ginsberg put up a post that listed the various lodges and sections that had been expelled. The most notable was the Boston Lodge, which has led to much discussion and controversy. It has occurred to me that the real issue is not one of the members studying Alice Bailey, which seems to be considered anathema, but the fact that TS has never fully reconciled with Alice Bailey or her organization. Consider the fact that she worked for TS, was one of their own and that she left under difficult circumstances. She went to New York, began writing the books (whether they are valid or not is beyond this post) and started a school. All in direct competition with TS, who has prided themselves on being the keeper of Ancient Wisdom. Now, one of their former loyalists, had stolen TS's thunder and given out information they either considered their own and/or did not consider the public ready for. It was like a glass of cold water thrown in their face. Has TS and the Bailey group ever shook hands and decided to live in harmony as two separate organizations? It doesn't seem that way. It seems that all the enmity and bitterness that was once directed at Alice Bailey is now being transferred to anyone dares to study her material. The one traitor has turned into many. - Ann E. Bermingham From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 2 13:05:02 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 9:05:02 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608021305.JAA24718@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Bailey vs TS In-Reply-To: <960802124838_72723.2375_FHP60-1@CompuServe.COM>; from "Ann E. Bermingham" at Aug 2, 96 8:53 am According to Ann E. Bermingham: > > Has TS and the Bailey group ever shook hands and decided to live in harmony as > two separate organizations? It doesn't seem that way. It seems that all the > enmity and bitterness that was once directed at Alice Bailey is now being > transferred to anyone dares to study her material. The one traitor has turned > into many. I was just reflecting on this pattern on the way to work. Same thing with Steiner, on a milder scale. Both apparently wanted to remain within the TS framework until the hostility against their innovative, independent work became overwhelming. (Steiner as a national section head had no right to order people not to join the Order of the Star in the East; OTOH Besant could have countermanded that order without expelling the whole German Section.) If Adyar or Wheaton demonstrated a grain of feeling responsible to explain and defend what they have done, it would not be so alarming. These expulsions have the atmosphere of "disappearances" in the Latin American model. One day, people are gone and no one is ever told why. Perceiving people as traitors and acting against them in secret is such a time-honored Theosophical tradition that it's hard to imagine the movement without it! PJ From ozren.skondric@kiss.uni-lj.si Mon Aug 2 15:40:10 1993 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1993 17:40:10 +0200 From: Ozren Skondric Message-Id: <2C5D355A.3473@kiss.uni-lj.si> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: information Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could somebody helpme with HPB's quote that goes something like Mind is a .... servant but a terrible .... - or something Thank you Ozren From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 15:36:50 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 11:36:50 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bailey and TS Message-Id: <960802153649_72723.2375_FHP45-1@CompuServe.COM> PJ: >Perceiving people as traitors and acting against them in secret >is such a time-honored Theosophical tradition that it's hard to >imagine the movement without it! It is the Scorpion nature. The Scorpio does not forget what is done against him/her and is prone towards vengeance. - Ann E. Bermingham From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 2 16:08:53 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Bailey vs TS In-Reply-To: <960802124838_72723.2375_FHP60-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > Consider the fact that she worked for TS, was one of their own and that she left > under difficult circumstances. She went to New York, began writing the books > (whether they are valid or not is beyond this post) and started a school. All > in direct competition with TS, who has prided themselves on being the keeper of > Ancient Wisdom. Now, one of their former loyalists, had stolen TS's thunder and > given out information they either considered their own and/or did not consider > the public ready for. It was like a glass of cold water thrown in their face. As far as I know there was no direct competition on the part of Alice Bailey. She wanted to stay in the framework of T.S. Her first book, Initiation Human and Solar, was offered to a Theosophical magazine; they turned it down after a few chapters were published, so that's why she went on her own. Situation in T.S. in those years (1920's) was much worse that it is now, T.S. politics were much dirtier than they are now under Radha Burnier or John Algeo. Just read Alice Bailey's autobiography and Emily Lutyens's Candles in the Sun -- these two sources perfectly match, and make a horrible picture of a mass madness among both the leadership and the membership of T.S. > Has TS and the Bailey group ever shook hands and decided to live in harmony as > two separate organizations? It doesn't seem that way. I do not think it was a two-way hostility. As a student of Arcane School founded by Alice Bailey I know that they offer a carefully selected but rather wide variety of spiritual teachings including H.P.B. (e.g. Alice Bailey's A Treatise on Cosmic Fire is heavy on quotes from The Secret Doctrine), a few writings by A.Besant and C.W.Leadbeater, Agni Yoga, and some other less known sources. One of Alice Bailey's books refers to R.Steiner as an adept (not as a crook or a fraud). So it seems to be rather inclusive. On the other hand, I doubt Arcane School needs any wide contacts with T.S. Contrary to what many believe, Arcane School is not a membership organization, they are not interested in recruiting as many members as possible, so they were able to stay away from the dirty occult politics in which T.S. got so heavily involved. It is just a correspondence school. They know I am a member of T.S. in America, it is perfectly OK with them, and in fact they do not care what I am studying and doing as a theosophist--they never, ever asked me about it. So it looks like their stand is more sound than T.S.'s. I think their idea is that a spiritual seeker needs to seek the precious bits and pieces of the occult wisdom given out by the adepts or their agents, whatever are their names or affiliations, and try to put them together aided and guided by his/her own higher self. Max From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 2 16:24:25 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 12:24:25 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608021624.MAA12448@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Bailey vs TS In-Reply-To: ; from "Maxim Osinovsky" at Aug 2, 96 12:11 pm According to Maxim Osinovsky: > > On the other hand, I doubt Arcane School needs any wide contacts with > T.S. Contrary to what many believe, Arcane School is not a membership > organization, they are not interested in recruiting as many members as > possible, so they were able to stay away from the dirty occult politics > in which T.S. got so heavily involved. It is just a correspondence school. > They know I am a member of T.S. in America, it is perfectly OK with them, > and in fact they do not care what I am studying and doing as a > theosophist--they never, ever asked me about it. Max, I think the direct head-to-head competitiveness is more between the E.S. and the Arcane school. It is precisely the threat that at some point there could be more Baileyites than E.S. members in the T.S. that has led to the atmosphere of expulsions, IMO. Cheers PJ From euser@euronet.nl Fri Aug 2 16:58:01 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:58:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608021658.SAA01669@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma Martin(prev)> Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >manifestation? Jerry S> Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born each time. The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation. That is not the view exposed by HPB. (Higher) manas is the permanent individuality or reincarnating ego, while atma-buddhi is on the one hand the human monad (G deP teaching) and on the other hand Atma-Higher Self, Buddhi-spiritual soul, vehicle of Atma (HPB in the Key to Theosophy). Lower manas is reborn each time. Martin> Let us assume the standpoint >of the human monad. It manifests as a personality, has its experiences, >and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. It stores what it has >learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. >The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, >forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new >environment it is going to manifest in, etc. Jerry S> This is the typical exoteric view of reincarnation, but not what was taught by HPB. The human monad is reborn each time. ^^^^^ I disagree. I've studied G de P on this and my understanding is this: each monad is spiritual essence per se, but has developed or evolved in different degrees vehicles on the planes of manifestation. These vehicles or souls transform gradually as experience is gained. It is not so much the monad that is reborn as that new vehicles are formed during the period of manifestation. According to G de P the evolutionary process is like a cross: on the vertical line there's the stream of consciousness proceeding from the top of a hierarchy (Silent Watcher, etc.) 'down' to the more material planes. This stream is being transformed or colored by the various foci (atman, jivatman, bhutatman, pranatman) and finds expression on the various subplanes. The horizontal line(s) have to do with each specific monad or focus of consciousness. The evolutionary process gives rise to the evolution of consciousness of each monad through the gradual refinement and transformation of its vehicles (souls) on the various subplanes. This scheme has some worth to me as I can relate to it in my experiences. Latent powers find expression in the human nature. It looks like the human being evolves his own octave within the manifold of frequencies and resonances with higher octaves (more evolved monads) is possible. I'm not sure how all these monads overlap or interconnect with each other, but I think they do somehow as nothing is isolated in nature. Jerry>The "aroma" of each life is stored, not in or by the human monad, but by and in the atma-buddhi. If you look at it as body, soul, and spirit, then only the spirit survives and reincarnates, forming a new soul and new body each time. So you see the human monad as a composite of spirit-soul-body? In that case it may be a question of terminology rather than intrinsic differences. My point was that each monad has its own atma-buddhi aspect and the human monad's atma-buddhi is not the same as one's Higher Self or Inner God, (which is designated Atman-Jivatman in Fountain Source of Occultism), I think. Martin From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 2 17:07:09 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Bailey vs TS In-Reply-To: <199608021624.MAA12448@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Max, I think the direct head-to-head competitiveness is more > between the E.S. and the Arcane school. It is precisely the > threat that at some point there could be more Baileyites than > E.S. members in the T.S. that has led to the atmosphere of > expulsions, IMO. It's quite possible. I remember that A.Bailey wrote something like that in her autobiography. She has been talking with a French theosophist about possible cooperation between E.S. and Arcane School, and suggested that E.S. might direct some of its members to Arc.Sch. for an advanced training, while Arc.Sch. might send the dropouts to E.S. where they properly belong in! Of course the French gentleman did not like the idea! It is amusing that A.Bailey was quite sincere and was at a loss trying to understand why the French guy was not pleased. But, I believe, the hostility goes beyond that. When presidents of our local branch of TSA contenmplate inviting a Bayleyite to give a public talk, they believe they need to think twice about it. Besides, some members of our branch cherish an idea of what they call "solid" theosophical stuff, A.Bailey material evidently not being solid enough. Max From Coherence@aol.com Fri Aug 2 17:44:24 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:44:24 -0400 From: Coherence@aol.com Message-Id: <960802134424_375909845@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Reincarnation & Karma Dear Group, I am jumping into the fray after a long absence, for which there are many reasons, none of which I will not bore you with. On 7-30, Michael Rogge wrote to Martin E.: >Since then I have grown wiser to the extent that I do not believe in anything anymore.> Suspension of (correct) belief does not strike me as wisdom. Which is not to say that healthy skepticism isn't good. For a little entertainment and to liven up your spiritual life a bit, try suspending your (now) disbelief and give some youthful consideration to the philosophy of theosophy, approaching with new eyes and a new understanding based on your years of experience. I find the philosophy only taking on more and deeper meanings. MR: >We often forget that our reasoning is based on a far vaster store of knowledge than the ancients> It seems to me that our far vaster store is of details, and this seems to come at the expense of the big picture (Forest/Trees, etc.). A knowledge of details means nothing without the ultimate knowledge that they all fit together quite nicely within an overarching, consistent, all-inclusive scheme and philosophy. Science was beaten so badly for quite a time by the church of Rome, that it now refuses to go beyond what it can physically observe. I think there are enough people here who can attest that "knowledge" can only come from experience of realms beyond the physical. >Ancient wisdom, apart from its wealth of psychological/spiritual insight, was based on speculation when it came to details> So now we have the details and have lost the "wealth of psychological/spiritual insight". This is not progress in my mind. And I would not be so quick to dismiss the "wealth" of the ancients. >I have stated that the idea that nature renders justice by a law of KARMA seems more a wish than based on facts.< I missed your July 12 contribution, perhaps outlining your reasoning there. If you would, could you explain why you believe this to be the case? >Every act/thought of man ties him to a pattern of behaviour. He enters into and becomes part of a state of mind that is reflected in his behaviour. He is attracted and absorbed by a world in which such acts and desires are natural. If that person wishes to free himself of his fixation, he will find that the way back is relentlessly harsh. To start acting and thinking on another level will prove to be a heavy burden. To undo precious actions/desires will appear like a punishment and an arduous trail. But this is not a law of KARMA, it is plain psychology/behaviourism> Hmm. As I read your thought, it seems like the purest theosophy to me, and a very practical application of the workings of Karma. Some simple statements of aspects of Karma might be: Thought is the basis of all action. Karma is action. Attraction/repulsion are a fundamental and pervasive law; an aspect of Karma There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it and feel its effects. Karma is the highest aspect of the Absolute. Consideration of these leads me to the understanding that the situation you describe above is Karmic. There is nothing that is outside of the workings of Karma, for Karma is action itself. It is materialistic and naive to try to separate any action from Karma. >Admittedly, interrelationships between individuals and groups give rise to ties/links that may work in mysterious ways/synchronisms, but it cannot be compared to a law of nature.> Again, we cannot separate anything from Karma. Anything that moves is subject to law or I would even say that anything that IS is subject to Law/Karma. My recommendation would be to broaden your understanding of Karma. I think that the dwelling of the early theosophists on justice/punishment/reward was to combat the ingrained church concept of a personal god doing the job. I DO NOT think that their understanding of Karma stopped there and the writings/teachings they left confirm this. At the end of your discussion of Karma you write: > . . . the concept of Karma reflects the nineteenth century way of thinking that all could be explained by discovering the mechanisms of nature. The fallacy lies in the word "all".> If we truly discovered the mechanisms of nature, why would these not explain all? You even make the point earlier that through the invention of holography, we know that the smallest particle reflects the whole. This would indicate a unity that you then seem to deny later in your discussion. If we discovered the mechanisms of nature, would we understand them? Probably not. But we must continually search and our search will be aided by the hypothesis that once found, all will be explained.. Thanks for your thoughts. Greg Hoskins From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 2 17:54:35 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 13:54:35 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608021754.NAA00768@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Problems according to Campbell Reflecting upon the statement that "the only problem" in the Theosophical movement was too many members with too little knowledge of/interest in the source writings, I reread Bruce Campbell's section on "Inherent Dilemmas" in his Ancient Wisdom Revived. He lists five, which I will summarize below: 1. Mystical Ideal vs. Institutional Reality This one is most basic, according to Campbell, and underlies all the rest. Because Theosophy is identified by abstract terms like "wisdom religion" and "gupta vidya," members are reluctant to acknowledge and deal with the day-to-day realities of organizational existence. Focused on the abstract, they leave the concrete details to be taken care of without much oversight or scrutiny. Quoting Campbell, "Belief in a mystical ideal and in the denigration of organizational forms lies at the heart of the problems... It contributes cetranlly to the conflicts over succession... It is bound up with the ambiguity of the Society's lacking official beliefs...renders difficult the evocation of commitment from religious resskers, masks the quasi-religious character of Theosophy, and contributes to the devaluing of intellectual work. 2. The Routinization of Charisma: Problems of Authority and Succession There is continual strain over claims and counterclaims about succession in the movement, within and among the organizations. Campbell says, "Often today there is a recognition that each Theosophical group has a unique and valid mission, but each group also thinks itself to be the genuine and in some sense sole successor to the early movement. The tension between these two views is a continuing source of strain in the Theosophical movement. 3. Doctrine without Dogma Campbell opens by describing the confusion created by Leadbeater's ideas that are contradictory to those of HPB, and the arguments about what is validly considered Theosophical. He continues, "The dilemma of doctrine without dogma has other important implications. Religious and spiritual groups need to reexamine their ideas periodically and to reformulate them to speak to the needs of different generations. The claim of religious neutrality gives Theosophy a false sense of universality and timelessness, and thus masks this need for reformulation." 4. Tolerance and the Seeker Mentality There is a low level of commitment to the TS (here we have the problem of such concern to Eldon) because as a mystical group it is loose and informal, lacks a strong core of socially bonded members, tends to be "easy come, easy go" with a high turnover in membership. 5. Theosophy: A Religion or a Philosophy The claim that Theosophy is not a religion creates two problems. First, it "blurs the distinction between knowledge and faith. Theosophy attempts to appear as reason, but its central claims are not fact but belief. The existence of the Masters, [ahem] karma, reincarnation, human brotherhood-- all are religious conceptions that elicit faith but are not subject to proof or disproof. By avoiding calling itself a religion, Theosophy does not avoid basic its organization on religious beliefs." The second problem is that ritual lends a cohesiveness to religious groups, which Theosophy is deprived of because it denies or avoids its essentially religious character. Comments? From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 2 14:52:55 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:49:55 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <947D972A72@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Jerry Ekins wrote: >Yet Josephus does not mention the murder of the children spoken of in the Bible. >HPB finds it improbable that Josephus would have failed to >mention such a hideous crime yet chronicles many others of lessor >note. This is an indirect evidence against the historicity of >the Biblical Jesus. Herod was increasingly more tyrannical near the end of his career (Ant. 16. 11. 8; Jewish War 33). This may provide the background to the slaying of the children recorded in Matthew 2:16. Herod was certainly, according to Josephus, not only capable of such a horrible crime, but was indeed disposed toward such evil acts. Note: It appears that this terrible event is not recorded in Josephus. Enc. Britanicca Vol 5 page 879, writes: Unfortunately, there was a dark and cruel streak in Herod`s character thal showed itself increasinglv as he grow older. His mental instability moreover, was fed by the intrigue and deception that went on wihin his own family. Deeplv in love with Mariame, he was prone to violent attacks of jealousv, his sister Salome (not to be confused with her great-nice Herodias' daughter Salome) made good use of his natural suspicions and poisoned his mind against his wife in order to wreck the union. In the end Herod murdered Marianne, her two sons, her brother, her grandfather and her mother, a woman of the vilest stamp who had often aided his sister Salome`s schemes. Besides Doris and Mariame, Herod had eight other wives and had children by six of them. He had 14 children. In his last years Herod suffered frorn arteriosclerosis. He had to repress a revolt, became involved in a quarrel with his Nabataean neighbours, and finally lost the favour of Augustus. He was in great pain and in mental and physical disorder. He altered his will three times and finally disinherited and killed his firsthorn, Antipater. The slaying shortly before his death, of` the infants of Bethlehem was wholly consistent with the disarray into which he had fallen. After an unsuccessful attempt at suicide, Herod died. Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 2 15:18:14 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:15:14 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <94E9686BF6@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Alan wrote >On the historicity angle, it is interesting that Eastern Orthodox icons always depict the >nativity of Jesus in a cave, not a stable. Correct. Scholars recognices that Justin wrote his Apology under 140, when gospels were not written in our present form. So, some details, such as the local of Jesus nativity, was not a consensus beteween christians. Observe that even Justin recognice slaying of children by Herod, and the Jesus lived under Pilate, so refutes the belief stated by HPB that Jesus lived one century before. http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers, file ECF01.TXT THE SECOND APOLOGY OF JUSTIN FOR THE CHRISTIANS ADDRESSED TO THE ROMAN SENATE CHAP. LXXVIII. And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judeea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Judeea. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him.(5) "So Herod, when the Magifrom Arabia did not return to him, as he had asked them to do, but had departed by another way to their own country, according to the commands laid on them; and when Joseph, with Mary and the Child, had now gone into Egypt, as it was revealed to them to do; as he did not know the Child whom the Magi had gone to worship, ordered simply the whole of the children then in Bethlehem to be massacred. And Jeremiah prophesied that this would happen, speaking by the Holy Ghost thus: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and much wailing, Rachel weeping for her children; and she would not be comforted, because they are not.'(1) Therefore, on account of the voice which would be heard from Ramah, i.e., from Arabia(for there is in Arabia at this very time a place called Rama), wailing would come on the place where Rachel the wife of Jacob called lsrael, the holy patriarch, has been buried, i.e., on Bethlehem; while the women weep for their own slaughtered children, and have no consolation by reason of what has happened to them. Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 2 15:33:04 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:30:04 -0300 From: Subject: Re:Historic Jesus(reply to Dr. Alan Bain) Priority: normal Message-Id: <9528BF6281@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Alan wrote: >this is Christian history or doctrinal discussion, not theosophy. When I refer to canonization of some texts such as Revelations and epistle of James, stablished in the century IV by the first councils of the church I pretended to show that 2 Timoty was not put under suspicion at that time. I am tried to show that this epistle was not a forgery, because it was not contested by any canon. Reading Unveiled Isis, chapter BOOK 1(start page 71, end 97) page 94 HPB defines theosophy, and says that one of its purposes is discuss errors committed by Catholic church, in history. So I understand that christian history is also a matter discussed in theosophical groups. Am I wrong? >Abrantes: I would like that you give me historic references. I am open to this dialog, even >knowing that maybe I am discussing with non-christians. >Alan: Are you able to check the sources that Blavatsky mentions in "Isis"? This difficulty can be overcome, at least partially, with INTERNET. I already consulted some sites that follows: http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis gnostic texts http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Lifebook/" CICI Home Page - Catholic.Net http://www.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/documents.html The Ecole Initiative: Early Church http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers Early Church Fathers Abrantes From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 2 18:00:08 1996 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 14:00:08 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608021906.PAA09549@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: elitism vs. esotericism >I am not sure how anyone, can know if anyone else in "on the Path" even >if one knows the person however intimately. I wonder whether it matters. I think everyone on this list is doing certain things because they aspire to be on the path. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 2 18:09:46 1996 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 14:09:46 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608021916.PAA10040@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: reicarnation I've often wondered what the difference is between the concepts of animal groups souls and the human collective unconscious. As a Rupert Sheldrake fan, I think it makes sense that individuals add to the combined experience and knowledge of the entire human race and that new individuals draw whatever "suits" them from this morphogenetic field. So it is said that there is a pool of experience stored up for both animals and humans. On the more earthly side, I defy anyone to convince me that Chouchou doesn't have an entirely different personalitiy than had Mysty, my first cat who got run over. Liesel From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 19:31:48 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 15:31:48 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Bailey vs TS Message-Id: <960802193148_72724.413_FHP47-1@CompuServe.COM> Max writes: "But, I believe, the hostility goes beyond that. When presidents of our local branch of TSA contemplate inviting a Bayleyite to give a public talk, they believe they need to think twice about it. Besides, some members of our branch cherish an idea of what they call "solid" theosophical stuff, A. Bailey material evidently not being solid enough." This illustrates a big problem in the TS. Why should officers of a local branch, whose members including themselves have agreed to be in sympathy with the 3 declared objects (and by the way that is all they have agreed to in becoming members), have to think twice about having a speaker on any subject within the purview of those objects? A talk or course or study group should be permitted on anything within that purview. It could be on Bailey or Steiner or Krishnamurti or Gurdjieff or even Star Trek. I call to your attention that even Wheaton, at the recent annual convention, had a presentation on Star Trek. It's up to you Max, and your fellow members, to insist on freedom of thought and expression. Your members who "cherish what they call solid theosophical stuff," need not attend any such talk or course or study group. But why should they deprive other members who are interested? If you and your fellow members do not stand up for the 3 declared objects, then who will? And what is the real meaning of your TS membership? This is what the St. Louis meeting in October is all about. Sy Ginsburg From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 2 20:16:35 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:16:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Problems according to Campbell In-Reply-To: <199608021754.NAA00768@leo.vsla.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Reflecting upon the statement that "the only problem" in the > Theosophical movement was too many members with too little > knowledge of/interest in the source writings, I reread Bruce > Campbell's section on "Inherent Dilemmas" in his Ancient Wisdom > Revived. He lists five, which I will summarize below: I believe Campbell is pushing the theosophical movement (TM) in a wrong direction. His analysis is relevant if TM is going to survive as a movement. This is not a top priority, IMO. TM is to be a means subordinated to a certain end. If we clarify the end, maybe we will see that we do not need a new 'theosophical religion,' or even the movement as it is exists now. As to the end, I need to turn again to the three objects--sorry about it... Human brotherhood? - Looking around I do not hear any theosophical voices helping relieve racial tensions, etc. (on the contrary, I suspect that people of color consider theosophy a 'dead white male' thing absolutely foreign to their concerns); I think an army of social workers and certain public figures is doing it, and they are doing a wonderful job. Comparative philosophy and religion? - Again, theosophists (after HPB) are hardly known for their groubdbreaking contribution; what I see is that scholars are doing wonderful job of translating scriptures and making them available to the wide audience, and it is not unlikely that in due course of time, applying their analytical tools, they will arrive at a realiable synthesis. Also, I believe--I do know for sure since I was not in this country in '60s and '70s--theosophy contributed virtually nothing in counter-culture and synthesizing movements like new age, human potential and transpersonal psychology. (On the contrary, when theosophy really encounters the new age philosophy it tends to yield as The Quest magazine evidences.) Exploring unknown laws of nature and human nature? - This is a hard nut! But again, a slow progress being made in this area was achieved by scientists, not theosophists--see Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of Subtle Energies, etc. The real problem is that theosophists solemnly voice their allegiance to the three famous objects, but in real life they are doing something else. A part of the problem is that we did not have after HPB any high initiates to lead the movement. So what we need to do is to look and see where we are, to reformulate the objects accordingly, and to build the movement accordingly, too. TM had a great beginning; we possess a unique body of sources--primarily Mahatma Letters, HPB's writings, and like, and I believe we are charged with a responsibility to develop and enrich it, forgetting about dreams to form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood and to outsmart scientists and scholars. Here is my concrete suggestion: what theosophists may do and what they are already doing well, is working at a better formulation of a synthetic ESOTERIC knowledge that could unify various Western and Eastern perspectives into a coherent whole, plus related practical work (study, meditation, group work). I agree with Campbell that we "need to reexamine" our "ideas periodically and to reformulate them to speak to the needs of different generations." This is what I call for. As to the lack of "a strong core of sociallly bonded members"--it's obsolete in this age of the Internet. Max From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 2 20:21:30 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 16:21:30 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608022021.QAA03720@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Rethinking Esotericism There are many possible uses of the term "esotericism," and if I had Antoine Faivre's Access to Western Esotericism at hand, I could give you an academic definition. But the sense in which I meant it when assuring Eldon that most Theosophists were keenly interested in the subject may not have been what he meant when he said they were not. What I meant by the term was "doctrines from spiritual traditions that have historically been preserved in esoteric contexts, withheld from all who were not initiated into the traditions." And, secondarily, "teachings about aspects of humanity or the cosmos which are hidden or secret, not accessible to ordinary methods of study." But I suspect Eldon means "doctrines *now* preserved within secret initiatory lineages, accessible only to those who meet the special requirements"-- which is quite a different matter. And in that sense, no, most Theosophists are probably not interested in esotericism. I feel that part of the significance of the Aquarian Age is the end of esotericism in the sense of deliberate concealment and restriction of access to spiritual teachings. The age of Pisces was about devotion and service, self-sacrifice and commitment, which easily plays into a master/slave relationship. Chela, after all, means slave. Whereas the Aquarian energies are about *public access* (e.g. the Internet) and equality and independence-- none of which fits in with the tradition of esotericism as a modus operandi. Maybe I should own up proudly to being "just anybody off the street" rather than being offended by Eldon's use of such a phrase. As with Rich's appelation of "plebeian New Ager," sometimes things that are meant to be disparaging can be embraced as honorable instead. There is a real division between those of us who are enamored of the whole ideal of secret transmission and those who are not. One can look upon HPB as Boris de Z. did, "the greatest occultist in the history of Western civilization." Or, one can look upon her as the greatest disseminator to a mass audience of things that were guarded by occultists prior to her coming. From RIhle@aol.com Fri Aug 2 20:50:10 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:10 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960802165010_376047143@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: What's next in the movement >Jerry Schueler writes> > What if thoughts are expressions of images, >and that images or signs are expressions of symbols, which in turn are >expressions of eternal and universal archetypal realities? Richard Ihle writes> The cool thing about my predilection for writing about subjects which are interesting to about one person in a trillion is that I can have a big argument with someone else with the same predilection and be almost assured there will be no audience in the vicinity to assess who wins or loses. . . . Now, I am entirely convinced that there must be some way I can look at your foregoing statement and agree with it. On the other hand, perhaps I should stop being so pusillanimous about the things I also have a "quite high degree" of inner certainty about--especially when they are the result of so many years of paying attention to inner states of consciousness. There is just no getting around it: I see a slightly different order in the "Holy Theosophical Sequence" which must be the underlying basis for all three components of the Principal Theosophical Philosophy. The main difference we seem to have is whether thought precedes imagery or vice versa. I think this is crucial to figure out because at least in the "psychogenetic" context, it is necessary to know the order of the "stratas of consciousness" in which potential "ego-formations" can come into existence and go out again. Now, I don't know about what you think the prospects are for your point of view in all of this, but I have more or less dispaired of mine long ago. The biggest stumbling block seems to be getting other people to regard something they see, taste, touch, smell or hear as a temporary ego-formation ("physical'--e.g., "I am my toothache"), or something they want as another type of ego-formation ("desire-feeling"--e.g., "I am my craving for pizza") or like/dislike-tainted idea as still another type of ego-formation ("desire-mental"--e.g., "I am my gut-opposition to abortion") etc. Without first appreciating the fact that we are not just one but a potential collection of ~I am this or thats~ (ever-changing but each occupying center stage only one at a time), it would also be impossible to sense that there is an orderly, physical-maturation-related, septenary cycle which underlies the unfoldment of these "egoic opportunities." The problem then becomes compounded with the second big stumbling block: the difficulty of conveying the difference between ~having~ such and such~ and ~egoically being~ such and such. For example, it is one thing for a fifteen-year-old to tell the class that we should drop hydrogen bombs on Irac and a twenty-two-year old asserting the same thing. In the first case, the student could ~have~ such an idea, but not really ~be~ that idea in the sense of "I really ~am~ my desire-mental notion"--because the former could not yet have "psychomatured" into the fourth cycle, age 21-28 (actually, such possibility would start opening at the midpoint of the previous cycle, ~generally and approximately~ about age 17 1/2). So anyway, you may get some sense of some of the knotty problems which I believe have kept esoteric psychology esoteric so long. Indeed, were it not for the analogical possibilities provided by the system of Rounds, Root Races, etc., I do not believe I would have ever sensed that along with physical, "moral," cognitive etc. maturation there was also such a thing age-related psychogenetic maturation--the little ~I am's~ experimenting and progressing under the Watchful Eye of the big ~I AM~, so to speak. According to this scheme, at age 42 a person at least on the threshold of Sixth-Degree Self-awareness (not everyone belongs to the psychogenetic analog of this "Root Race," however) would have psychomatured so that most of the major types of egoic "delusions" would be available: animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, mental, and Spirit-mental. While it is comparatively easy to prevent "full egoic error" by maintaining the Once-Removed-Vantage ("Witness," "Silent Watcher") at the lower levels, it obviously becomes more tricky in the more "rarefied" conditions of consciousness. But this brings us back to the little problem of sequence. To me it was so amazing that HPB slightly modified the Kabalistic saying in this way: "The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; [the spirit, God?]." It is my contention, based upon many years of watching the sequence not only in the process of falling asleep, but also during meditation, that the "plant" position not only stands for desire-feeling (kama) consciousness, but that ~inner imagery is most often associated with it~. I have tried to be as objective as possible but I have invariably found the inner experience to be in this order: first a vague "pranic-type" tingling; then physical sensations; then inner pictures; then a sort of "talking to oneself" in association with the pictures; then the pictures drop off leaving only an inner monologue going on and on; then the words disappear but one is conscious of oneself "holding" thoughts without any words. In short, there is no way around it: my inner certainty keeps suggesting that it is the inner word and not the inner picture which is at the threshold of Buddhi-manas consciousness. I don't know . . . what is the meaning of ~manas~, anyway? I have seen it translated as both "intelligence" and "mind." However, I have also very often seen it rendered simply as "thought" or "thinking." This latter translation makes me recall a debate in academic circles quite a few years ago. One of the major questions was phrased like this: "Is thinking possible without words?" A research study hooked up electrodes to people's vocal chords and got minute readings at this organ site when the subjects were thinking. Does that prove that words, or at least some sort of symbolic correlatives, are necessary for thinking? Maybe yes; maybe no. It is only fair to point out that other studies hooked up electrodes to the fingers of deaf-mutes and got readings there also, and that no one, as I remember, checked on whether there was rapid-eye-movement indications among a possible type of "thinker" who may do so by viewing/manipulating inner imagery. However, I suppose for a study like the latter to be able to determine whether manas really could stand for pictorial as well as verbal activity, it would be necessary to have electrodes attached not only to the eyes, but also to the vocal chords--just to make sure the subjects weren't cheating and talking to themselves as they watched. . . . . . . And speaking of watching, Jerry, I think that the last one-person-in-a-trillion who might have been interested in watching us debate this stuff has just left audience. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Fri Aug 2 21:02:06 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 10:02:06 +1300 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <32026CCE.C65@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma References: <199608021658.SAA01669@mail.euronet.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martin_Euser wrote: > > Martin(prev)> Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of > >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new > >manifestation? > > Jerry S> Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born each time. > The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which > puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation. > > That is not the view exposed by HPB. (Higher) manas is the permanent > individuality or reincarnating ego, while atma-buddhi is on the one hand > the human monad (G deP teaching) and on the other hand Atma-Higher Self, > Buddhi-spiritual soul, vehicle of Atma (HPB in the Key to Theosophy). > Lower manas is reborn each time. > > Martin> Let us assume the standpoint > >of the human monad. It manifests as a personality, has its experiences, > >and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. It stores what it has > >learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. > >The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, > >forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new > >environment it is going to manifest in, etc. > > Jerry S> This is the typical exoteric view of reincarnation, but not > what was taught by HPB. The human monad is reborn each time. > ^^^^^ > > I disagree. I've studied G de P on this and my understanding is this: > each monad is spiritual essence per se, but has developed or evolved in > different > degrees vehicles on the planes of manifestation. These vehicles or souls > transform > gradually as experience is gained. It is not so much the monad that is reborn > as that new vehicles are formed during the period of manifestation. GdeP says that a human being is a composite being and he talks about the evolution of life-atoms or monads in the manner that we are composed of animal-monad, human-monad,spiritual monad,etc which are on their own evolutionary path and it is the MONAD on the divine level that has birthed these monads and indirectly influences them to unfold their divine potentials. It is not easy to talk about monads unless one is careful to qualify which monad one is talking about. These various monads would appear to me to be what is termed the permanent atom that stores the frequencies of previous experience on each of the levels so that the life atoms resonating with that frequency are called into service again when the reincarnating ego decides to return to embodiment. He says that it is the animal-monad within our configuration now that unfolds the potential to become the human-monad in the next manvantara and that our present human-monad was the animal-monad in the lunar chain. It is rather complicated and takes a lot of thought to unravel some of the links. There is a MONAD and many monads and lots of life-atoms that are monads-in-becoming, seen from our present perspective, all within this configuration we call a human being. > > According to G de P the evolutionary process is like a cross: > on the vertical line there's the stream of consciousness proceeding from > the top of a hierarchy (Silent Watcher, etc.) 'down' to the more material > planes. This stream is being transformed or colored by the various foci > (atman, jivatman, bhutatman, pranatman) and finds expression on the various > subplanes. The horizontal line(s) have to do with each specific monad or > focus of consciousness. The evolutionary process gives rise to the evolution > of consciousness of each monad through the gradual refinement and transformation > of its vehicles (souls) on the various subplanes. > > This scheme has some worth to me as I can relate to it in my experiences. > Latent powers find expression in the human nature. It looks like the human > being evolves his own octave within the manifold of frequencies and resonances > with higher octaves (more evolved monads) is possible. > I'm not sure how all these monads overlap or interconnect with each other, > but I think they do somehow as nothing is isolated in nature. He also uses the idea of a rope with knots in it at each plane. The atman is the first knot and it send a ray of itself to the buddhi plane and takes on a buddic vehicle, then the mix of them both puts forth a ray to the manas plane and so on until the physical plane knot which has a slight touch still left of the atman ray. This appears to be how the inner influences the outer if the vehicles permit or are fine enough to register the influence. Interesting conversation. Bee > > Jerry>The "aroma" of each life is stored, not in or by the human monad, > but by and in the atma-buddhi. If you look at it as body, soul, and spirit, > then only the spirit survives and reincarnates, forming a new soul > and new body each time. > > So you see the human monad as a composite of spirit-soul-body? > In that case it may be a question of terminology rather than intrinsic > differences. My point was that each monad has its own atma-buddhi aspect > and the human monad's atma-buddhi is not the same as one's Higher Self or > Inner God, > (which is designated Atman-Jivatman in Fountain Source of Occultism), I think. > > > Martin From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 22:18:37 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 18:18:37 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Elitism or Esotericism Message-Id: <960802221837_76400.1474_HHL54-2@CompuServe.COM> >If a person belives (or knows for himself or herself) that he/she is on >the Path, I am not going to argue. Each person has their own right to >believe or know that they know. But when it comes to question of trying >to determine someone is on the path, I think there are very practical >problems. Doss, I firmly believe that everyone is always On the Path, consciously or unconsciously. Just like the physical body always grows older, whether you want it to or not, so the other subtle bodies grow as well, including the spiritual. On the Arc of Descent we are all evolving into matter and forming our own unique self-expressions. On the Arc of Ascent we are all involving back into our spiritual essence, some sooner and some faster, but we will all get there someday. Every person treads his or her own unique Path--no two are exactly alike just as no two persons are exactly alike. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 22:18:45 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 18:18:45 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Reincarnation & Terminology Message-Id: <960802221845_76400.1474_HHL54-3@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry S. States that "Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born >each time. The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which >puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation." >The only difference here is that Jerry removes "Manas" from the Causal, >making it Atma-Buddhi. I disagree with this ... All of this arguing demonstrates the problem that exists with Theosophical terminology. The model that I use myself is given below. I do not use Sanskrit, except for the principles, and there is one principle on each plane. My terminology has the advantage of being in plain English, easy to remember, and blending the HPB/G de P and CWL/AB models together, while not entirely agreeing with either. My model includes the Abyss which I believe HPB deliberately left out. It allows for the 12 Globes that G de P discusses, and relates them to the planes and principles and bodies, which I do not believe has ever been done before. Anyway, it serves me well, both for study, meditation, and experiential practices. It is: 1 Auric Egg (para-atma) Divine Monad Divine Plane 2 Spiritual (atma) Spiritual Body Spiritual Plane 3 ----------------------------------ABYSS----------------------------- 4 Causal (buddhi) Causal Body Causal Plane 5 Mental (manas) Mental Body Mental Plane 6 Astral (kama) Astral Body Astral Plane 7 Physical Physical Body Physical Plane Not every theosophist uses the same model that I do, and this always provokes "I don't see it that way" and so on. Lets try not to get too tangled up into verbage and names. When the human mind looks upward into spirit, it becomes buddhi-manas and when it looks downward into matter it becomes kama- manas, but manas is manas is manas. The way Theosophists throw these names around, it is terribly confusing for any reader to see what is meant, even long-term ones like myself. HPB had a hard time putting this stuff into words, and she changed directions and revised names as she went along trying to refine the ideas. The result is a lot of confusion. As shown above, I place manas on the third plane upward. This is where devachan takes place, and it is where the human mind is located and confined to. The Reincarnating Ego, by whatever name we want to give it, is located on the fourth plane upward, the Causal. So, by my model, we get a new manas with each incarnation. Now everyone is perfectly free to make this stuff as difficult and incomprehensible as they want to. But I prefer to keep things easy, straightforward, and plain as possible. I am NOT suggesting that anyone adopt my model, but am giving it out just so everyone can see exactly where I am coming from with my terminology. Without a 7-plane model of some kind as a framework, none of this stuff makes any sense at all. With a 7-plane model, it all makes perfect sense and forms a very nice structure that mentally underpins lots of experiential data. >. Further, Manas is NOT the human mind, but Mind in total. >The human mind is limited by the expression (or vehicle of expression) by >which it is observed (in Kama.) This makes the human mind "Kama-Manas", not >"Manas." I have a real problem with this idea, James. According to what you say above, the human mind is kama-manas. If so, then what is buddhi-manas? Divine mind? I don't think so. Inspiration and spiritual insight all come to us human beings via buddhi-manas, which most people, myself included, would like to see within the unbrella of the human mind. I don't transcend my human mind when I activate buddhi-manas, but I do transcend it when I activate atma- buddhi. But perhaps I am misunderstanding you? What is "Mind in total?" Do we human beings have access to a "higher mind" of some sort? Not only is the terminology "loose as a goose" but the way different folks use it sometimes makes it even worse. I am not trying to pick on James here, because we all have the same problem--the terminology is confusing and doesn't always make sense when we use it to convey an idea. To get around this, I made up my own terminology that works well for me. But when someone says "HPB says" then my response is always "when and where" because she says different things at different times. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 22:18:34 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 18:18:34 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: reincarnation Message-Id: <960802221834_76400.1474_HHL54-1@CompuServe.COM> >I've often wondered what the difference is between the concepts of animal >groups souls and the human collective unconscious I don't see any difference at all, Liesel. Jerry S. Member, TI From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 2 22:59:09 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:59:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: reincarnation In-Reply-To: <960802221834_76400.1474_HHL54-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > >I've often wondered what the difference is between the concepts of animal > >groups souls and the human collective unconscious > > I don't see any difference at all, Liesel. > > Jerry S. I wonder if it helps discriminate between those if we consider the humanity as a huge entity--then the human collective unconscious may be considered a strata in the humanity's subconscious mind, which is not the same as animal group souls. I believe the entity is called Macroprosopus in the Rosicrusian tradition--but I am not sure about it. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 22:11:25 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:11:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960801170207_72724.413_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960801170207_72724.413_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM>, Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> writes >As I mentioned on this list earlier, if anyone >wants to participate and cares enough, please Email your name and address and/or >those of your interested colleagues to me and I will mail you the information >about the Conference. > >Sincerely >Sy Ginsburg Dear Sy, I cannot be with you in person, but I shall be there is spirit, so to speak, and wish the Conference all that you undoubtedly wish for it. I have mentioned it to TI and UK member Robert Gilbert, and he would be pleased to receive info by e-mail to Robert@nellie2.demon.co.uk. TIA Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 22:17:23 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:17:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma In-Reply-To: <199608011529.RAA26290@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608011529.RAA26290@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser writes >M> This is the most interesting part to me: >> >> - what reincarnates (manas?) > >Alan>In this terminology, I cannot say, except that certainly not manas! >Buddhi? 50/50 on that. A piece of atma perhaps :-) > > Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >manifestation? Why not indeed - perhaps it does! In my own analagous (kabbalist) way of looking at it I would suspect that higher manas would overlap with lower buddhi (if that makes any kind of doctrinal sense) :-) > >M> And that these 'seeds' or tendencies remain >>latent in the auric egg or Field of consciousness-life-matter? >> >No. > > Let me phrase this differently. Let us assume the standpoint >of the human monad. It manifests as a personality, has its experiences, >and withdraws its energy from the outer vehicle. It stores what it has >learned (by means of its vehicle) on this earth in its database. >The monad needs more experience in this life and manifests again, >forming a new persona, based upon previous experiences, and, the new >environment it is going to manifest in, etc. >Does this picture appeal to you somehow or do you view this process >in a different way? > If it happens, I imagine would happen pretty much like you have just said. >M> I have read several accounts of spiritualists about Summerland, >>astral spheres, mental spheres, spirit guides, etc. These accounts seem to >>suggest that the astral body continues for a long time to live in several >>spheres (and some spiritualists do teach reincarnation although it is not clear >>to me what exactly reincarnates in their view: astral soul/body or what?) > >A>Not to put too fine a point on it, I think they are glamourising their >findings. One question here is what do you understand by "astral body?" > > The kama-manas entity. Oh dear! I am primarily a Kabbalist - what is a kama-manas entity? >> Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 23:04:21 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:04:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Traitors In-Reply-To: <199608021305.JAA24718@leo.vsla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608021305.JAA24718@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >Perceiving people as traitors and acting against them in secret >is such a time-honored Theosophical tradition that it's hard to >imagine the movement without it! > >PJ As not a few of us on this list know only too well from personal experience! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 23:03:00 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:03:00 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: In Reply, Huh Huh In-Reply-To: <199608012109.OAA22541@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608012109.OAA22541@sure.net>, James S Yungkans writes >Next time you might claim to be Edgar Allen >>>Poe, and..... >> >>Given your example, you are right, but who is getting into any pit? >>There are a great many assumptions in your own post here! > >This was supposed to be a witty attempt at a pun. "The Pit and the >Pendulum" was a story which I was referring to. This was also the reason for >including "Edgar Allen [Alan] Poe. We really must be a little more light >hearted. Attempt failed! Light hearted I am all in favour of. > The "Pit" could also be the past-life scenario we were talking >about (and it appeared that you did believe yourself to be one Ex-WW1 >Soldier [would that have been a pilot by chance?]) I wondered if I *might* have been. Belief is dangerous stuff. > >> My WWI experience is documented, and contains >>many elements I could not have possibly known beforehand, but which were >>verified by research after the experience. So although it *could* have >>been a "quick return" reincarnation, it does not follow that it was. > This is an example of why I have said in another post that your reading of my post seems to have been superficial - in the earlier paragraph you think I believed myself to bean ex-WWI soldier, whereas in the quote above I clearly state that this is only one possibility. >Any detail can be pulled from the Kama-Rupa, including exact coordinates for >buried treasure, Please pull some of these coordinates - we could all use them. Might help with the phone bills. > names of others from a platoon of soldiers, even pillow >talk. Such details would be left behind, and accessable. I personally >refer to these "SPOOKS" as floating "Recording Tapes (Read-Only)." You may be right, but your doctrinal position is not familiar to me. I do not know any "SPOOKS". > They >only need to be brought into contact with a player that has a sutable >playback mechanism (as do most mediumistic individuals, like yourself) As you do noy know me, you are in no position to make any statement concerning individuals who are like me. As far as I understand what you are trying to say, it sounds like BS to me. > to >have the grand total of their past histories presented. The accuracy, >needless to say, would be extraordanary, provided the Spook is not breaking >up, and getting disoriented. Again this is something coming from a presumably doctrinal perspective which I have met, considered, and rejected years ago. What *evidence* can be adduced for such a notion? > >>>2) that the animal kingdom is advancing faster than we are >> >>This is ridiculous - how on earth do you deduce such an assumption from >>my post? > >In Response, You stated in an earlier post: > 1. Life evolves "upward" from the lower kingdoms to the higher, so that > at some (undefined) point "lower" animals incarnate for the first time > as humans. > >3. Also against this view, if new humans are appearing all the time, > >*and* it takes those who are on the wheel of rebirth vast ages to get > >off, there has to come a time when due to the slow progress of human > >beings, there will be no room to move on the planet. No, I presented my understanding of an assumption implicit in the Annie Besant/CWL/Jinarajadasa model, and the above paragraphs are relevant to the "IF" of that model. > >So, if (a) Lower animals are incarnating as humans, and (b) "Due to the slow >progress of human evolution, there will be no room on this planet", then the >animal kingdom (of a quantity X) are becomming human faster than the human >kingdom (Quantity Y) is becomming Deva, therefore since X > Y (according to >your statements) my deduction of your statement is very much affirmed. See above - it is *not* my statement, but my reading of someone else's model. Unless you have access which I do not (and would not seek) you will have to raise this matter with those whose names I have mentioned. >Perhaps you can provide a restatement to clarify your views, which I feel >limits the human kingdon to Genus "Homo" (by using Darwinian concepts) >rather than noting the difference between Animals and Mankind, which is not >subject to "Physical" definitions. If it were, are you possibly related to >that individual in HPB's office that we've made such a fuss about (you know, >the furry one in the coat :} > See above. These are NOT my views, but a particular theosophical model's views. > >>>If mankind was not moving forward, how would one explain the growth in >>>psychic ability on as mass scale (which is an opening of the mind to the >>>forces of the other realms, or "Awakening the Dreamer") >> >>Could you provide evidence to support this assertion? I for one do not >>see any. > >This was meant to be a question, however, the following logic may help. >If mankind is developing Psychic abilities at a faster rate than in past >time period, then something must be happening to the human race. IF. > Therefore >we must attempt to understand what is happening. IF. > Psychic abilities are >"Powers LATENT in mankind", correct? If these LATENT powers are becomming >MANIFEST, wouldn't it indicate that a change is occuring? And if we are >supposed to be Opening (like a lotus blossom), wouldn't this be viewed as >advancement. IF. > As far a "Evidence" is concerned, take a trip to your local >magazine store and read the journals. Practically everyone is being told >"You Are Psychic" with evidence to back up the allegation. This is >tandamount to, in the 1860's, everyone being told that they are >"Sensitives", which most obviously would not be the case. .. and so may not be the case here, either. > You can claim >that we aren't advancing, Thank you. Hoever, such a claim - any "claim" - would be rash. I point out (again - sigh) that I was speculating on the basis of the model already referred to. >>>snip<<< > >You (alan) said: "As defined in our teachings" does not tell me who the >"we" of "our" are. Most of the above does not resonate with me, or is >expressed in a >manner I cannot follow." If I am writing on a theosophical bullitin board, >I am referring to "we"/"Our" as Theosophist (in a general term) without >trying to identify individual source. I am a fellow of the T.S., and do try >to explain things in theosphical terms. If things are not written in a form >you can follow, I will try to accomidate you, however, if it does not >"Resonate" with you, then you must open your awareness to be able to >perceive what is meant in a given section of text. I MUST? I also am a fellow of the T.S., whose objects require no such requirements - not even the study of theosophical teachings. Get real. > Personally, a fine >theosophist as yourself (a self-proclaimed expert in psychic phenomina, >SPOOKS, and other such things) who expounds Theosophy International on every >post should have these capabilities well developed by this time (Or is all >this "Psychic Ability" and "Experience" of yours a Humbug, and nothing more >exciting than the talk of astral spooks resonating through the ethers of the >internet)[my apologies for sounding harsh or undignified, but I feel that, >that until we gain better control of our Kamic selves, including listening >to anything that "Floats" by as a Guru or Angel, that we should be cautious >with any opinions we accept as true.] You are being insulting. Please stop it. > >>>I expect Mr. Bain's next post to >>>be something on the order of "I only chewed in self-defence, but I never >>>swallowed." >>I have no idea what you are trying to say here. > >I was simply drawing an allegory between you as "Draco" (the dragon in >"Dragonheart"), which I thought might be humerous and/or flattering. When >Drago was accused of eating a knight, he made this comment. By the way, >Dragons like Draco, as presented in this film, are perfect allegories for >Devas (Devs, or Devils.) Also the only diference between Angels or Devils >(both are Devas of sorts) with that one is on the right hand path while the >other is on the left. I still have no idea of what you are trying to say here. > >And on it continues... > No thank you. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 22:32:14 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:32:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <88R3FIAuHoAyEwU8@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: on reincarnation & Karma In-Reply-To: <199608020750.AAA02617@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608020750.AAA02617@sure.net>, James S Yungkans writes >P.S. Alan, you state that "none of the quotes is mine!" Would you care to >step into the room and present your views (and I promise to be a gentleman >:) I would expecially like to hear from some of your "assistants" (Spooks >or ?) in regard to where the system is in "Error", or is this in substancial >agreement with you as well? That was with regard to the particular posting, which has the same heading as this one, but contains nothing by Alan, if you get my point. You seem to have a strange idea of where I am coming from, which suggests you have taken only a superficial look at what were no more than a few "asides" in the first place. In your post you present a complicated, SD kind of picture, which you appear to offer as a doctrinal position. Whether it is in error I cannot say, and, I suspect, if everyone were totally honest, everyone else would say the same. I have no "assistants" or "Spooks" - an amusing idea in itself, and am bemused to think what kind of images are in your head about me! :-) As for the terminology you use, while I probably *have* read it (as I have read the SD and Isis and ....) it not the language or terminology I am familiar or happy with, having taken up the kabbalist path in preference some 40 years ago. I guess you and those interested from the SD terminology point of view will have to follow this one without me - I wish you well! Just take my name out of the subject header .... Alan (F.T.S.) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 23:29:54 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 19:29:54 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Rethinking Esotericism Message-Id: <960802232953_72723.2375_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM> PJ: >I feel that part of the significance of the Aquarian Age is the >end of esotericism in the sense of deliberate concealment and >restriction of access to spiritual teachings. The age of >Pisces was about devotion and service, self-sacrifice and >commitment, which easily plays into a master/slave >relationship. Chela, after all, means slave. Whereas the >Aquarian energies are about *public access* (e.g. the Internet) >and equality and independence-- none of which fits in with the >tradition of esotericism as a modus operandi. Then the idea of esosteric knowledge (as in knowledge confined to a small group) made accessible on the internet (world-wide access) would actually be a contradiction. Perhaps that which was formerly esoteric will become exoteric. And in 100 years no one will even think twice about it. They'll be busy reading it on their computer notepads on the way to work or watching it on their wristband view screens. Or experiencing it in virtual reality. -Ann E. Bermingham From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 2 23:47:25 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 19:47:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: What's next in the movement Message-Id: <960802234724_76400.1474_HHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> >In short, there is no way around it: my inner certainty keeps suggesting >that it is the inner word and not the inner picture which is at the threshold >of Buddhi-manas consciousness. Thanks for the dialogue, Richard. Its a facinating subject, at least to me. I am not sure that we really have any conflict here, when all is said and done. Where the images fall away, depends on where you are on the "7-plane model" at the time, exactly what model you are using, and what your terminology is. Let me just say that Eastern Esotericism teaches that the two highest and longest-lasting senses are sight and sound, and that the highest of these is sound (thus mantras and the famous OM). So, I don't disagree with your finding that at some point sight (images) falls away and only sound (words--which are nothing more than another form of symbol) remains. Whether this occurs precisely at the "buddhi-manas threshold" is probably the only point left to debate. I agree that at this threshold thoughts are no longer clothed in language, but appear as naked ideas. That is my experience as well. > ...phrased like this: "Is thinking possible without words?" Not as we think of thinking. Animals think without words, but their "thinking" is not exactly what we usually mean by the term. I see thoughts as ideas clothed in words and these are sometimes charged with emotional energy, but sometimes not. Telepathy is done with ideas, and bypasses language. Jerry S. Member, TI PS. BTW, I agree that we all have multiple selves or egos. PS to PS: And you are right--no one will ever know who won. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 23:38:15 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:38:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Group souls In-Reply-To: <199608021916.PAA10040@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Dear Liesel, My 2 cents' worth agrees with you. I would perhaps go so far as to say that the group soul of humans follows pretty much the same pattern as any other group soul. One of its components however, seems to be the wish to believe that the human group soul is superior. Cats are very special, and as individual as we are. They are different from us, sure, but they also know how to manipulate us ..... Many years ago I "met" the cat goddess Bast (Egyptian). She appeared as ENORMOUS. Then I understood why the ancient Egyptians made the statues so huge! (If anyone wants me to tell the story, forget it, unless they really want to know what I experienced - period. And private e-mail only.) Alan In message <199608021916.PAA10040@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >I've often wondered what the difference is between the concepts of animal >groups souls and the human collective unconscious. As a Rupert Sheldrake >fan, I think it makes sense that individuals add to the combined experience >and knowledge of the entire human race and that new individuals draw >whatever "suits" them from this morphogenetic field. So it is said that >there is a pool of experience stored up for both animals and humans. On the >more earthly side, I defy anyone to convince me that Chouchou doesn't have >an entirely different personalitiy than had Mysty, my first cat who got run >over. > >Liesel > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 2 23:57:40 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:57:40 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <79mitVA0XpAyEwFq@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: New List Mime-Version: 1.0 At the suggestion of John Mead, he and I have set up a list for the discussion of ways of promoting the objects and ethos of Theosophy International. This is something of a specialised purpose (like theos- news) and not intended for general theosophical discussion which is not TI-related. This is already well catered for by theos-l and theos-buds. The list is, like all the lists, unmoderated, and it is not necessary to be a member of Theosophy International to subscribe to it, which is done in the usual way. Send a message to listproc@vnet.net with no subject header and the single one-line message subscribe TI-L your name It is probably best to omit your sig file when subscribing. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sat Aug 3 01:13:20 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:13:20 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608030113.AA15278@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: historical Jesus Hello Abrantes. I wrote: >>Yet Josephus does not mention the murder of the children spoken >>of in the Bible. HPB finds it improbable that Josephus would >>have failed to mention such a hideous crime yet chronicles many >>others of lessor note. This is an indirect evidence against the >>historicity of the Biblical Jesus. You wrote: >Herod was increasingly more tyrannical near the end of his >career (Ant. 16. 11. 8;Jewish War 33). This may provide the >background to the slaying of the children recorded in Matthew >2:16. Herod was certainly, according to Josephus, not only >capable of such a horrible crime, but was indeed disposed toward >such evil acts. Note: It appears that this terrible event is not >recorded in Josephus. JHE I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that Herod was tyrannical and committed many heinous crimes. The historian Josephus had a particular dislike for the man and recounted his crimes in detail, thus leaving a record of his "evilness" for posterity. Herod's reputation as an evil king was so legendary that even the late writers of the gospels would have known of it, though they may not have been able to recall his exact crimes. A man with a reputation for evil often gets glamorized and receives credit for crimes he never committed. Even recent history teaches this. In the American Southwest during the last century there was a renegade native American named Geronemo, who raided camps and killed many European settlers. The public was so terrorized by him, that even long after he had been captured and imprisoned, there were still newspaper reports of raids and murders that he could not have committed. Perhaps you have incidences like this in the history of your own country. So, it is not unreasonable that Herod might have been credited with the crime of murdering the town's children when he was actually innocent. This might be especially true if such an event would fulfill a prophecy, as you suggest. To put it another way, the fact that Herod *might* have been capable of such a crime is very different from actually committing it. That Herod killed his own eldest son was certainly a heinous crime that caught the attention of his people. Josephus recorded this event. Can you imagine how much more hatred the people would have felt against Herod if he had killed all of the children in Bethlehem? It is one thing to have a King kill his own child, but to have a King kill your own children is even more memorable. Do you honestly believe that is it really probable that Josephus could have forgotten to record such a crime? HPB is not alone in doubting that Herod committed this crime. This appears to be an almost unanimously held opinion among modern biblical scholars. Abrantes: >Observe that even Justin recognice slaying of children by Herod, >and the Jesus lived under Pilate, so refutes the belief stated >by HPB that Jesus lived one century before. JHE Not necessarily. Justin was not a Rabbi, therefore it is unlikely that he would have been initiated into the Jewish traditions concerning Jesus. Also, Justin lived in the second century long after the Pilate tradition was already established in the first century; so it would be expected that a non Jew of the second century would assume the established tradition of the early church to be authoritative. Therefore Justin is not necessarily refuting the Jewish tradition cited by HPB, rather he was just following the established tradition of the church. If you can find evidence that Justin cited and renounced the Toldoth story, then we could say that he refutes it. But even if this proves to be so, I do not see how it proves the nativity of Jesus one way or the other. Further, the quotation you furnish from Justin is a very polished statement of second century Christian doctrine. In other words, Justin was just repeating established canon. In truth, the whole birth story of Jesus in Bethlehem, the star, the census and the Magi are presently very much in doubt among the more critical eyes of the modern biblical scholars. These stories are found to be contradictory and inconsistent and are suspected of being fabricated in order to fulfill OT prophecy. On the matter of the historical Jesus of the Jewish tradition: since you are investigating the background of HPB's references on www, I would be interested in knowing what you might find concerning the Ophite sect of Gnostics and the "Syrian heresies." These should throw more light upon where HPB was coming from. I'm not equipped nor skilled nor do I have the time to search www myself. So you would be doing both of us a favor if you do so. thanks Jerry From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 02:52:58 1996 Date: 02 Aug 96 22:52:58 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Problems according to Campbell Message-Id: <960803025258_72723.2375_FHP45-1@CompuServe.COM> Max: >As to the lack of "a strong core of sociallly bonded members"--it's >obsolete in this age of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing. Where once we were separated by miles and expensive long-distance phone bills, we can talk to people from all over the world. We exist as entities in cyberspace. But it's also still great to be in room full of warm bodies that are munching on cheesecake and drinking coffee or tea. I'd rather have the best of both worlds. - Ann E. Bermingham From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 3 15:33:06 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:33:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960803113306_170917386@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: New List ON my way. Chuck the Heretic From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sat Aug 3 04:12:47 1996 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:12:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Problems according to Campbell In-Reply-To: <960803025258_72723.2375_FHP45-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > Max: > >As to the lack of "a strong core of sociallly bonded members"--it's > >obsolete in this age of the Internet. > > The Internet is a wonderful thing. Where once we were separated by miles and > expensive long-distance phone bills, we can talk to people from all over the > world. We exist as entities in cyberspace. > > But it's also still great to be in room full of warm bodies that are munching on > cheesecake and drinking coffee or tea. I'd rather have the best of both worlds. I agree. I would add to it that besides Internet chat and physical presence there is a third option not to be overlooked by theosophists, a spiritual presence abd spiritual communication. To my limited knowledge, it's mostly hard work, but also sometimes listening to angelic harping and perhaps smelling some good coffee or tea :) Max From theos@sure.net Sat Aug 3 07:41:46 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:41:46 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608030741.AAA19233@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: General response to Mr. Bain. I have been working under the assumption that you fully rejected a position of theosophical philosophy and fully embrased spiritualistic beliefs. From my readings of past posts perhaps I mistook your comments. I had also mistook your statments to imply certain Supra-Physical "beings" working with you. If I was wrong, Sorry. But I would like to know your position, Kabalistically (if you care) to the discussions at hand (using your terminology, of course). I know you stated: >I guess you and those interested from the SD terminology point of view >will have to follow this one without me - I wish you well! Just take my >name out of the subject header having taken up >the kabbalist path in preference some 40 years ago, it not >the language or terminology I am familiar or happy with With this in mind, I would present a means of communication for one who does not speak "Adayrian Theosophese" I would choose to position the bodies under discussion (which you called theosophical) using the following: Ist Logos Ayn: "NOT" 2nd Logos Ayn-Sof: "Limitless" 3rd Logos Ayn-Sof-Aur:"Limitless light" Monad Keter-Chakhmah-Binah = "Supernal Triangle" Abyss of Jerry S. Daat Atma-Buddhi-Manas Causal body Chesed-Gevurah-Tiferet = "Intermediate Triangle" Kama-Manas Mental/Astral Unit Hod-Netzach Linga Sarina Etheric Double Yesod Shula Sarina Physical Body Malkhut = "Infernal Triange + bride (=Malkhut)" Quoting from the Bahir, "Why does the torah begin with a 'Beth'. So that it may begin with a blessing." Blessing is said, according to Rabbi Kaplan, to represent Chakhmah (Wisdom), so the model begins with a blessing (a Monad), bringing to mind the common language that a child is a blessing. The Book of Trees (a manuscript which preserved a great number of kabalistic systems not as commonly used as those of the Gra and the Ari), in an older kabalistic tree system shows Keter-Chokhmah-Binah as a single circle with three dots in it (i.e. a single unit.) This again would imply a monad, but as a "Three in One" conceptually. SD1, Page 200, would possibly represent this as either "the divine and formless worlds of spirit (but I would rather make these the logoic levels), as the line which divides the triange from the four worlds (or on that line), or as center point of the triange (not Shown) which would descend into the center of the circle (again not shown). The last being deduced from ES Lesson #1 (albeit by interpretation.) the grouping of Chesed-Gevural-Tiferet (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) would (again referring to Page 200) be the world of Atzilut (the Archetypal World.) This would place the Monad (or possibly the Causal body) in a position to contain all of the Archetypes that could be formed during an incarnation. Contuniing the model would place Manas (both Buddhi and Kama) in Beriyah (the creative world) and Kama (with Kama-Prana) in Yetzirah (the formative world.) Kama would therefore belong to both Beriyah and Yetzirah (as any seperation from the ALL would be an illusion, per Buddhist doctorine) To finish the model, Yesod & Malkhut would compose the 'Sarina'. In the model referred to from the book of Trees, Yesod and Malkhut are again combined as a single circle with two dots. This would simply show the close embrace between the eteric double and the Physical body. Using Bailey terminology, could the following be accurate: - Plane - Sefirah Adi = Keter (Crown) Monadic = Chakhmah (Wisdom) Atmic = Binah (understanding) Buddhic = Chesed-Gevurah-Tiferet (Love-Strength-Beauty) Mental = Hod (Splendor) [& Eloheim Tzevaot] Astral = Netzach [& Adonay Tzevaot] Physical = Yesod-Malkhut [& El Shaddai - Adonay] The prior posts on reincarnation (or embodiment) would be good sources of doctorine to discuss in conjunction with the above. This should provide enough material for you to work from "Should you choose to accept this assignment ;)" I hope that Fellows not fluent in Kabalese could bear with this, as this should exercise our use of "Freedom of thought". Besides, this is an attempt to "Get Real", as Alan suggested. Starting with no past ideas about your viewpoints (so that you aren't "Bemused"), please show us how a 40+ year veteran of kabalistic thought would explain the concepts. james From theos@sure.net Sat Aug 3 07:41:50 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 00:41:50 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608030741.AAA19238@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Reincarnation and Terminology Jerry Schueler writes: >"But perhaps I am misunderstanding you? What is "Mind >in total?" Do we human beings have access to a "higher mind" >of some sort? > Not only is the terminology "loose as a goose" but >the way different folks use it sometimes makes it even worse." AMEN. And I must admit that my term "mind in total" is confusing. The difficulty arises when one trys to speak about Mind which is stated to exist as early as Dyzan Stanza 1, Sloka 3 albeit in a state of "NOT" (or AYN, or Absolute Negativity), and as HPB says "Universal Mind ever IS." If we are to use the buddhist concept that separation is an illusion, or Maya, then every human mind is connected to this "Universal Mind." It is only the unconsciousness of an individual, in varying degrees, that separates one from this "Mind". This would be the "Higher Mind" I was trying to refer to. As the mind becomes a 'Receptive organ', rather than an 'Organ of Action', one becomes aware of the activity of this mind. I think the receptive state that I refer to is the 'Activation of Atma-Buddhi' you mentioned. What is your "Spiritual Body" that you assign to Atma(n). I haven't seen it mentioned this way in theosophical literature. Are you referring to the Agoidies (Mispelled) of the greeks, or perhaps something else? Language is definatly going to be the most difficult part of any discussion, theosphical or otherwise. I don't think there are ANY starndards, especially when Bailey, Heindel, Steiner, Kaballah (how many flavors are ther for this one?) etc. are included in the discussion. james From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 3 07:14:55 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 03:14:55 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608030821.EAA08707@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: essotericism > One can look upon >HPB as Boris de Z. did, "the greatest occultist in the history >of Western civilization." Or, one can look upon her as the >greatest disseminator to a mass audience of things that were >guarded by occultists prior to her coming. My opinion falls somewhere inbetween the 2 poles Paul mentions. I agree that the time has come to popularize more of the occult wisdom which has been kept secret. But that knowledge is the same as knowing how to split atoms, or breaking the genetic code, or any other laws of nature we've been able to get the hang of. It can be used to help or to hinder. And because it can be used to hinder, I think some of it ought to be disseminated with care, if such a thing is possible. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 3 08:11:12 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 04:11:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608030917.FAA09338@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: WEhat next? Richard says, >Does that prove that words, or at least some sort of symbolic correlatives, >are necessary for thinking? Maybe yes; maybe no. Seems to me we've gotten into the habit of using words when we want to think. Words have become our framework of communicating with others and I think to a great extent with ourselves. To go beyond words ... it's a whole nother art/science to interpret dreams which often function without words, but seem to be other kinds of symbols. Try to put a dream into words & you often lose part of it. But dreams are one realm beyond words which we understand something of. What other symbols do we have? and what's beyond symbols? Verbal symbols get translated into written symbols, whether letters or pictures. I think Sensar was pictures, and I don't really know what runes are ... but both have a aura of magic about them. They're all symbols that the mind plays around with, ie they have collective meaning, but they leave room for individual images. I think any Frenchman to this day knows of a little roll called a "madeleine". Proust wrote a whole famous essay on what a madeleine recalled to him. To do this, he started with a symbol, the little madeleine, his mind went beyond it, and then he brought back into words his recollections, which may have come to him by means of words, or by means of other images and symbols, and probably a mix of all. But who knows how much the "going beyond" is done with word symbols, and how much of it is done with mental who -knows -what, which are difficult to describe, or maybe impossible. I wonder whether kinetics would qualify as communication without words. My cat can't talk, but she can communicate her wishes & opinions by certain actions. Some of those she just does, some of them we've agreed to use as symbols. Like she just naturally raises her paw sometimes & shakes it, like a person making a motion with their hand "ech, I don't want (or like) this". Where we've just agreed to symbols ... when she starts scratching on the edge of the pot closet with her forepaws that signifies that she's hungry. As for what's our very basic thing beyond words... I wonder whether anyone has ever set up an experiment to determine that. I just ordered Jung's "Man & His Symbols" from the library. Maybe that will shed some light on the question. If I find anything, I'll let you know back, but it'll be a while, because I don't think my little local Library has that book on the shelves. They'll order it for me from another Library. Liesel From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 10:37:58 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 06:37:58 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Goal of Meditation - Re-Member-ing the Real Message-Id: <960803103757_74024.3352_BHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> While trying to meditate on some of the ideas presented by Blavatsky in the VOS, I have tried to understand why we focus on the number 7 so much, particularly in regard to the 7 bodies as evidence of 7 levels of manifestation. Blavatsky and others spend a great deal of time reiterating the 7 levels from the microcosm of the individual to the macrocosm of cosmic evolution. I have tried to develop and intuitive approach and try to integrate some of the ideas and try to understand how they could be put to practical use. The idea came to me of that the various planes, globes, bodies etc are separated in the way white light is separated into the colored spectrum in a prism. The seven colors show how the primal unitive white light is separated in space and time for our eyes by the prism. The goal of meditation is to provide a second prism developed in our own mind that will recombine the colors into white light. When this happens, we can cross the rainbow bridge or the anathakara into the higher unitve white light state of consciousness variously described as sat-chit-ananada, truth (being)- mind and bliss as our real state. The seven portals, keys, and the golden stairs help create the diamond "body" that can recombine the stopped down colors into there higher state of unity.. This might be the philosopher's stone so often hinted at. The stone that can transmute the base elements of our plane to the spiritual gold of eternal value. Thus it takes a develpment or the uncovering of this inherent faculty through meditation. We then have access to akasha, ultimate complete wisdom beyond verbal thought. We can travel on the laser light to the universal holographic mind (to wax in the current jargon). Ken Wilber talks about the spectrum of consciousness and how our various senses and mental functions tune into the various levels almost like tuning a radio to specific frequency. The chakra system is the center of ancient and modern attempts to understand our consciousness and linked to various bodies in a non-mental way that is not centered in the brain or physical nervous system I realized that I must have heard this before in many places. I realized that a similar idea has probably been stated many times. The cave of shadow in Plato for one. And in I believe in Wordsworth, where he talks about the rose window splting the divine light into many colors. Thus what we take for reincarnation and acces to akasa may be a form of crytonesia or remembering things we heard or read in some simpler form. There seems a virture to balance every inherent vice in each of the bodies. !. Purity of the physcial body 2. Altruism in the emotional body 3. Slaying the tendency of the analytical mind to divide everything 4. Accessing the creative intuition 6. Meditation on wisdom beyond words 7. Linking them all to the will for compasionate loving service of evolution Each of the lower bodies can become a vehicle of the next higher and thus they are united to a single Will, rather than pulling oneself in 7 directions at once. Then one can become an active spiritual agent of the Real, as opposed to passive victim of the pull of the false, separated plane of illusion. Thus meditaion and perhaps all spiritual practice including analytical study of texts is an attempt to re-member, that is, put back the broken arms and legs of our divided illusory mayavic moral self on our whole eternal real spritiual immortal Self. WHen we touch the right things we are forced to reconstruct the memory or perhaps our future plan as unconscious image embedded deeply in us of our Real Self/ When we hear the Voice of the SIlence it is speaking to this Self. It is speaking to Itself. I AM THAT I AM. Namaste Keith Price From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 3 15:31:32 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:31:32 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960803113132_170916968@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Traitors Alan, Amen, brother, amen. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 3 15:32:16 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:32:16 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960803113215_170917346@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Rethinking Esotericism Ann, The whole idea of anything remaining esoteric is presposterous, for a very simple reason. Anything that somebody knows finds its way into the energy field of the planet simply because of the electrical activity of the brain. When neurons fire, they set off a minute radio signal contains information and this information goes floating out into the various subtle fields that surround humanity for lots of complicated reasons that would fill a book. All it takes is another brain working on somewhat the same frequency to pick the information up. That is why so many inventions have simultaneous discoverers. If someone has thought about it, it can be known. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 3 15:33:21 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:33:21 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960803113320_170917403@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Problems according to Campbell Ann, Aside from my preference for pizza and beer, I agree. Chuck the Heretic From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 3 17:52:30 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 13:52:30 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608031859.OAA22720@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Ann's Bailey vs TS Dear Ann, To add to your good words, I firmly believe that it's about time to put all this petty, divisive, in- the- way- of- progress -standing factionalism behind us, and all of us be able to act together... brotherhood, human family, nucleus, whatever we are, our beliefs are similar enough to be able to act together. It's one reason why I joined TI. It's also a reason why I belong to Dick Slusser Project Outreach, which crosses factional boundaries. It's also the reason why I regret that Stephan, the Swiss university student who was a Steiner person disappeared again from theos-l. It's also why I'm in touch with Konstantin, who is in some way related to the Moscow TS, even though the latter doesn't belong to Adyar, or to any place else, it seems. Theosophist is as Theosophist does, whatever the blend. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 3 18:25:23 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 14:25:23 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608031932.PAA23552@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Paul's Problems according to Campbell The one that I'd like most to be able to solve: "Theosophy apttempts to appear as reason, but its central claims are not fact but belief." We try to adopt those "ideas", which check out against our experience, and against what we perceive by our senses ... whatever seems reasonable. That's a very commonly advised procedure. The problems is, I think, as to what's included in "our senses". Seems to me, there's a fine line somewhere between "what we perceive" and "beliefs". Actually, I myself feel comfortable with just having "beliefs". No Theosophist is ramming them down my throat... they better not with most of us ... but instead we can pick & choose the ones that appeal to us. I prefer to accept "ideas", but I guess I will also accept some well chosen "beliefs" .. in spite of the fact that Harry warns "don't believe anything. Check it out." I do try to check it out, but I'm not clairvoyant, so my checking out is more limited than his was. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 3 18:40:41 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 14:40:41 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608031947.PAA23958@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Paul's Problems according to Campbell, part II I pushyed the "send" button too fast Ideas bneed to be reformulated to speak to the needs of different generations. I'm in favor of that for a very long time already. It's something I'd like the TI to do in the worst way. It's also why I like Shirley Nicholson's writings, and am looking forward to Ed Abdill's videos with study guide on basic theosoophy. I suspect that John Algeo just did the same thing when he just revised the Simmonds study guide (however you spell it). There's a low level of commitment to the TS ... lacks core of socially bonded members. The latter seems to be true, most often, except for ES members, and I think sometimes among study group members. Hq doesn't encourage or enhance cohesiveness. As to the former, Paul, I think both you and I are witness to the fact that once it's gotcha, there's a hefty tie, which can last through years of abuse & alienation. Theosophy, on paper, and as per a very few impressive live role models, is a beautiful thing to try to live by. So once you realize what it really can be, you try to live it best you can, even if the average everyday theosophist that you come across is from hunger. Liesel From pmmkien@main.com Sat Aug 3 20:27:13 1996 Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 15:27:13 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608032018.PAA04724@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Did Jesus exist? Regarding the various arguments of when Jesus lived or - whether he even existed... I find it interesting, given that the early Christian had so many enemies between both Jews and Romans that no one seems to have brought up the issue in the early days. Consider -- the canonical gospels, which were (according to mant scholars) around in one form or another by the early second century. If indeed the stories in them were a total fabrication in the sense that Jesus either didn't exist or existed a hundred years earlier, why didn't some enemies of the Christians catch on to this and trumpet the news throughout the Roman empire? The Jews were certainly interested in slandering Jesus the best they could - A rumour, quoted by Origen, was in circulation around 150 AD that Jesus was an illegitemate child of Miriam and a Roman soldier Pantera. It's hard for me to believe that the Christian's enemies never suggested that the entire person was a fabrication - if indeed that was the case. It's just too good an opportunity to miss. Paul K From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 3 20:05:22 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 21:05:22 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Kabbalist comparisons In-Reply-To: <199608030741.AAA19233@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608030741.AAA19233@sure.net>, James S Yungkans writes >I would like to know your position, >Kabalistically (if you care) to the discussions at hand (using your >terminology, of course). > >With this in mind, I would present a means of communication for one who does >not speak "Adayrian Theosophese" I would choose to position the bodies >under discussion (which you called theosophical) using the following: > >Ist Logos Ayn: "NOT" >2nd Logos Ayn-Sof: "Limitless" >3rd Logos Ayn-Sof-Aur:"Limitless light" Possibly an interesting set of correspondences to some, but I fear I am with John 1:1 on this, so that there cannot be three logoi. > >Monad Keter-Chakhmah-Binah > = "Supernal Triangle" > Perhaps, if we agree on what "monad" means (I see this as referring to a single, discrete unit of being). >Abyss of Jerry S. Daat > >Atma-Buddhi-Manas Causal body Chesed-Gevurah-Tiferet > = "Intermediate Triangle" My understanding of Kabbalist philosophy does not include "Causal body" as a reference to anything, though I have some idea of Atma-Buddhi-Manas as principles emanating from, or contained within the monad - perhaps both. >Kama-Manas Mental/Astral Unit Hod-Netzach Kama-Manas is not a term I know anything worth writing about. Mental/Astral Unit (or component?) perhaps, but I ascribe this to the world of Yetzirah. >Linga Sarina Etheric Double Yesod Again, the SD refs are not my cup. The problem I see with this discussion is that it assumes an agreed frame of reference on basic Kabbalist perceptions, but as you note below, there are a number of ways in which Kabbalah can be presented. I will try to explain: in my K (for "Kabbalah") view, this would be true of the Greater Yesod on the scale of Jacob's Ladder when applied to the level of human Being, but would not do so on the scale of the minor "sephiroth" in the four worlds. This will not mean much to some Kabbalists, so we are faced with the ever-present problem of defining terms. >Shula Sarina Physical Body Malkhut > = "Infernal Triange + > bride (=Malkhut)" I don't accept any "Infernal Triangle" but do accept the idea that Malkuth includes all of the Sephiroth preceding it, which means that all of these various "bodies" are present within the physical in some way, if indeed the existence of this many "bodies" can be verified, which seems doubtful. "Etheric body" yes, as there is more than enough evidence to support its existence from personal testimony. > >Quoting from the Bahir, "Why does the torah begin with a 'Beth'. So that it >may begin with a blessing." Blessing is said, according to Rabbi Kaplan, to >represent Chakhmah (Wisdom), so the model begins with a blessing (a Monad), >bringing to mind the common language that a child is a blessing. The model you have presented above equates the monad with three sephiroth, whereas 'Hokma is only one Sephira. (We will probably agree to differ on spelling - so let's use whatever we normally use, so long as we understand the same thing by it). Kaplan had a great deal to say! :-) > The Book >of Trees (a manuscript which preserved a great number of kabalistic systems >not as commonly used as those of the Gra and the Ari), in an older >kabalistic tree system shows Keter-Chokhmah-Binah as a single circle with >three dots in it (i.e. a single unit.) This again would imply a monad, but >as a "Three in One" conceptually. SD1, Page 200, would possibly represent >this as either "the divine and formless worlds of spirit (but I would rather >make these the logoic levels), as the line which divides the triange from >the four worlds (or on that line), or as center point of the triange (not >Shown) which would descend into the center of the circle (again not shown). >The last being deduced from ES Lesson #1 (albeit by interpretation.) This is all SD stuff, and I have never seen ES Lesson #1. (Unless it is one of the SD vol. 3 items?). Not my cup. I appreciate your interest in a comparative study (a la 2nd object) and which I commend, but I am unlikely to have the time to stay with you on this - maybe Jerry S. and one or two others will find it interesting. The same applies to the your next three paragraphs. > >the grouping of Chesed-Gevural-Tiferet (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) would (again >referring to Page 200) be the world of Atzilut (the Archetypal World.) This >would place the Monad (or possibly the Causal body) in a position to contain >all of the Archetypes that could be formed during an incarnation. > >Contuniing the model would place Manas (both Buddhi and Kama) in Beriyah >(the creative world) and Kama (with Kama-Prana) in Yetzirah (the formative >world.) Kama would therefore belong to both Beriyah and Yetzirah (as any >seperation from the ALL would be an illusion, per Buddhist doctorine) > >To finish the model, Yesod & Malkhut would compose the 'Sarina'. In the >model referred to from the book of Trees, Yesod and Malkhut are again >combined as a single circle with two dots. This would simply show the close >embrace between the eteric double and the Physical body. > I have snipped the Bailey refs, as I am not familiar with her work. Others may follow up on this, I suspect. > >The prior posts on reincarnation (or embodiment) would be good sources of >doctorine to discuss in conjunction with the above. I don't think so. What this material appears to address is incarnation, not reincarnation. >>>more snip<<< >Starting with no past >ideas about your viewpoints (so that you aren't "Bemused"), please show us >how a 40+ year veteran of kabalistic thought would explain the concepts. > > james > I do this in my "Keys to Kabbalah" which is only available privately printed from myself. It is necessary to pay for this, as there are a number of diagrams, as well as Hebrew text, plus versions of "Sepher Yetzirah" and "The 32 Paths of Wisdom" plus two different sets of tarot Trump illustrations, diagrams of cathedral churches, Solomon's temple, and the Temple at Luxor, plus commentaries and appendices. Sorry about that, but 40+ veteran years cannot be sent in a couple of e-mails! Best wishes, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 21:11:52 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 17:11:52 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: reincarnation & group souls Message-Id: <960803211151_76400.1474_HHL67-1@CompuServe.COM> >I wonder if it helps discriminate between those if we consider the >humanity as a huge entity--then the human collective unconscious may be >considered a strata in the humanity's subconscious mind, which is not the >same as animal group souls. I believe the entity is called Macroprosopus >in the Rosicrusian tradition--but I am not sure about it. Macroprosopus is a personification. If we personify for humans, why not for cats? How about Bast? The collective unconscious is humanity's group soul--a soulish kind of thing that we humans all share. Anyone who suggests that animals have no individuality simply doesn't understand animals. As far as I am concerned, even the smallest dust mite has its own unique individuality. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 21:11:59 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 17:11:59 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Terminology Message-Id: <960803211158_76400.1474_HHL67-2@CompuServe.COM> > If we are >to use the buddhist concept that separation is an illusion, or Maya, then >every human mind is connected to this "Universal Mind." It is only the >unconsciousness of an individual, in varying degrees, that separates one >from this "Mind". This would be the "Higher Mind" I was trying to refer to. Well, I agree that there is a "universal mind" or Mahat, but I see it as identical with Jung's collective unconscious. The problem is that when we shift our consciousness to it, we are no longer talking about the "human mind" or manas. Mahat is far beyond even "higher manas." I would say that it is only the ignorance of an individual, rather than the unconsciousness, but this is a nit pick, and I think we are talking about the same thing. >What is your "Spiritual Body" that you assign to Atma(n). I haven't seen it >mentioned this way in theosophical literature. Are you referring to the >Agoidies (Mispelled) of the greeks, or perhaps something else? Theosophical literature doesn't mention much of anything above the Abyss, so you won't find it there. But it seems a logical fallout from "as above so below" and also G de P suggests that we have a monad on each plane that is dualistic--it has both a subjective side (principle) and an objective side (body or vehicle). It is the "body" or vehicle that consciousness uses as its upadhi or bases when in the state that is called samadhi. >Language is definatly going to be the most difficult part of any discussion, >theosphical or otherwise. I don't think there are ANY starndards, >especially when Bailey, Heindel, Steiner, Kaballah (how many flavors are >ther for this one?) etc. are included in the discussion. The terminology is a real problem, and those who stick to HPB's terminology are not doing themselves any favors because she changed it so many times. The challenge is to get beyond the names and into the meanings. When we do this, we can call the stuff anything we want to, even weird things like "spiritual body." As I see it, the globes, bodies, and planes are pretty much fixed and definite objective "things." The principles, however, are subjective and they can shift and mix together. So we can talk about atma-buddhi-manas, and higher manas, and kama-manas, and so on because the principles mix together pretty well and can temporarily combine in many ways as our consciousness shifts around. This is very confusing to newbies, and I am not at all sure how to explain it to them. Jerry S. Member, TI From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sat Aug 3 21:47:52 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 14:47:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960801170207_72724.413_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello Sy: What you wrote about--I mean those expulsions--disturbs me very much, partly because I am an Alice Bailey student, but mostly because I hate restrictions of freedom. So I consulted the national bylaws as published in Early Autumn 1995 issue of American Theosophist (AT) and John AlgeoFs articles in most recent issues of AT to see what's going on. It looks like those expulsions WERE legal! Bylaw 9, Section 6 says in part: "Section 6. Cancellation of a Charter. Whenever in the opinion of the Board of Directors a lodge has ceased to perform the functions for which it was chartered, or shall have engaged in activities contrary to the best interests of the Society, or shall have failed to abide by its own bylaws or those of the national Society, the Board shall by resolution declare that lodge to be inactive." So it's clear enough: The Board of Directors has full authority to dissolve local lodges if something goes wrong. In general it is OK with me except a vague phrase, "activities contrary to the best interests of the Society" that seems to be unacceptable. I believe it is this provision that has been used to expel the Boston group, right? It's highly subjective. Who is going to judge about it? Obviously the Board as is implied by Bylaw 7, Section 1. So it seems that this provision gives the Board an enormous, virtually unlimited power over local lodges. I am VERY concerned about that provision because I came as a refugee to this country from the former Soviet Union, and I know very well how many crimes very commited against many Soviet citizens--all "in the best interests" of the people. Exactly the same phrase, "in the best interests of..." (substitute your pet interests) was available in the Soviet Constitution, too, so it may serve as an excellent tool of manipulation. The above interpretation is fully confirmed by what John Algeo wrote in AT (emphasis added): Late Spring 1996 issue, p.2: "Local groups are extraordinarily important to the welfare of the Society, but they are SUBSIDIARY, NOT PRIMARY." "National sections areL Ithe representatives of the parent Society in particular countries. Local groups--lodges and study centers--are its representatives in specific localities. These subunits are very important for carrying on the work of the Society, having their particular roles in that work. But ultimately there is only one Society, and all Theosophical Fellows are members FIRST AND FOREMOST OF THAT ONE SOCIETY AND ONLY SECONDARILY OF A LOCAL GROUP AND A NATIONAL SECTION." In other words, all Theosophical Fellows are property of their respective national societies, while national societies are property of the "parent Society." The Big Brother (John Algeo) is well and alive... Sy: I wonder if the expulsion of the Boston group has been covered in AT. If so, could you provide reference(s)? ------- Regarding the "Freedom of Thought" letter and the Editor"s (i.e. John Algeo"s) response: What I have discovered in the national bylaws, is not encouraging either. The Preamble reads in part: "The Theosophical Society, while reserving for each member full freedom to interpret those teachings known as Theosophy, is dedicated to preserving and realizing the ageless wisdom..." Now, it says that the members are free to interpret THEOSOPHY as they wish, but it does not explicitly say that the members are free to study in their branches and study centers something else. What happens if some members study, let's say, Alice Bailey? According to the letter of the bylaws they may be expelled if the Board of Directors thinks such a study does not further "preserving and realizing the ageless wisdom"--as they understand the ageless wisdom. Unfortunately, the bylaws make it extremely easy to expel the members. Section 9 "Termination of Membership" of bylaw 4 says in part: "(b) Membership may be rescinded by a two-thirds or greater vote of the Board of Directors on recommendation of the National President." There is absolutely no qualifying statement as to why and under what circumstances the President may give such a recommendation and the Board may approve it--all that is left to their personal opinion and judgment. So, in the light of these findings, what John Algeo replied to Mathias van Thiel is nothing else than hypocrisy. ------------ Sy: The two loopholes mentioned above make it very difficult for you and the like-minded members to advance your agenda. It looks like the very way TS is structured will oppose any attempts at change. In any case, serious changes to the international and national bylaws will be needed, otherwise the members will still remain less significant than the Society embodied by the Board. Max On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > In the current issue of the American Theosophist (Late Summer 1996) there > appears the following letter to the editor under the title "Freedom of Thought": > > "I have been quite impressed with the information that you greet new members > with. It is a valuable job well done. I have, however, heard a disturbing > rumor that the Society has and will censure people who engage in studies not > within the framework considered "Theosophy." I hope I was misinformed." > (signed) Mathias Van Thiel, Hayward, CA. > > The editor replies: "Indeed you were misinformed...." and goes on to recite the > general council (Adyar) resolution on "Freedom of Thought" which it says is > published regularly in the Adyar Theosophist, and "The Theosophical World View" > statement which appears on the back cover of the American Theosophist. > > I assume that new member, Van Thiel, will be reassured by the editor's > statements, as I was when I joined the Society 18 years ago, and saw that the > only requirement for Society membership was to be in sympathy with the 3 > declared objects. > > But after uncovering facts through independent investigation, on behalf of the > TS in Miami & South Florida, and largely unknown to most members, I am > embarassed by the reply given Mr. van Thiel, because the Editor's statements do > not accord with the bahavior of National and International officers, who have > taken actions opposed to freedom of thought by expelling Lodges and National > Sections. > > I discovered that the Danish National Section was expelled by Adyar in 1989 > primarily for what appears to me to be overemphasizing the Alice Bailey > teachings. > > I discovered that the Boston Lodge was expelled from TSA in 1993 primarily for > what appears to me to be overemphasizing the Alice Bailey teachings. > > I also discovered that the Canadian National Section was expelled by Adyar in > 1992. > > I discovered that the Yugoslavian National Section was expelled by Adyar in > 1984. > > At the Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida we have hanging on the wall > a beautifully framed rendering of the 3 declared objects. When prospective new > members inquire about membership requirements, we show them the National > Membership Application, and point to our framed rendering of the Objects. > Indeed, the National Membership Application in 1996 has imposed no further > requirements than the application I signed in 1978. The sole membership > requirement as stated continues simply, to be in sympathy with the 3 declared > objects. > > But now that we at Miami know what happened in Denmark and in Boston, it has > become an embarassment to continue to say this to prospective new members. And > I would be embarassed if I were the AT editor and made the reply to Mr. Van > Thiel that was made. If the AT Editor really means what he replied to Mr. Van > Thiel, then why has there been no move on the part of the TSA officers to > redress what was done to the Boston Lodge and make an effort to bring them back > into the larger Society? Similarly, why has there been no move on the part of > Adyar to bring Denmark and Canada back into the larger Society? So far as I > know, even as recently as the July convention, there has been no move on the > part of the officers of TSA to take any positive steps in this direction. > > Eldon Tucker wrote to this list on 7/31 under "Elitism or Esotericism": > "They do try to stick to their brand of Theosophy (Adyar), although the politics > involved and the expulsions are, to put it mildly, undesirable." > > Yes, that's putting it mildly, Eldon. How can the officers and directors of TSA > go about mouthing the 3 Declared Objects but acting contrarily to them? And how > can TS members who presumably do care about the TS, simply say that "expulsions > are, to put it mildly, undesirable" and let it go at that, not letting their > objections be strongly heard by the national officers? > > The expulsions of Lodges and National Sections, are unacceptable if we who are > members of the TS(Adyar), really believe in the 3 Declared Objects, and care > about the T.S. Some of us TS members do care and do not want to see the TS > dwindle into insignificance, as is rapidly happening, because of actions not in > accord with the 3 Declared Objects. We will be holding a Conference in St. > Louis October 5th to reaffirm our sympathy with the 3 Declared Objects and to > otherwise work on this matter. As I mentioned on this list earlier, if anyone > wants to participate and cares enough, please Email your name and address and/or > those of your interested colleagues to me and I will mail you the information > about the Conference. > > Sincerely > Sy Ginsburg > > From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 22:27:47 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 18:27:47 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Another Bailey-type Web Page Message-Id: <960803222746_72723.2375_FHP47-1@CompuServe.COM> There is another Bailey-related web page for The Journal of Esoteric Psychology at: http://www.yosemite.net/sources/ - Ann E. Bermingham From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 3 23:38:11 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:38:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608032338.BAA11255@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma > Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >manifestation? Why not indeed - perhaps it does! In my own analagous (kabbalist) way of looking at it I would suspect that higher manas would overlap with lower buddhi (if that makes any kind of doctrinal sense) :-) That makes perfect sense in the G de P model. In his model the planes of nature overlap or resonate, forming subplanes and even sub-sub-planes. Higher manas is evolved or given expression to along with lower buddhi. I'm getting interested in your kabbalist way of looking:). Seriously, I do know a little bit of Kabbalah but could use more info on it. >A>Not to put too fine a point on it, I think they are glamourising their >findings. One question here is what do you understand by "astral body?" > > The kama-manas entity. Oh dear! I am primarily a Kabbalist - what is a kama-manas entity? Alan, I was talking about some spiritualist's descriptions of the after-life. It looks like many of them say that the human soul, stripped of its physical body and etheric vehicle (model-body) survives after death and reincarnates again. Some of the descriptions I've read from them remind me of the human personality (desire, thinking) stripped from its physical attributes, hence my designating their 'astral', or, surviving soul, as kama-manas. Martin From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 3 23:38:15 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:38:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608032338.BAA11258@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: JSY on reincarnation & Karma JSY>Perhaps I could provide my ideas, and see how well they float: Euser: >Why cannot the (higher) manas within the auric egg (or field of >consciousness-matter) send out a ray, form a vehicle, for a new >manifestation? JSY>This is precisly what is presented, based on my reading/interpretation. The Manas is the Causal [Cause-al] body, James, I've looked up the definition of 'causal body' in HPB's glossary. She says (a.o.)that: 'Buddhi alone could not be called a "Causal Body", but becomes so in conjunction with Manas, the incarnating Entity or Ego'. So, both you and Jerry S. are partly right from the point of view in HPB's terminology (glossary), which is a good place to start with. JSY>which when manifestation is required causes a ray [or thread] to be emanated, which CAUSES the formation of: 1) Kama-Manas = Mental Body 2) Kama = Astral Body 3) Linga-Sarina = Etheric Double 4) Shula-Sarina = Physical Body Not to be nitpicking, but it is sarira, not sarina. I'm a bit uncomfortable with no 1) being designated mental body, although I've noticed this term before (CWL?, Bailey?). I prefer to look at kama-manas as operating within a psychic body or structure. As I'm currently studying other divisions of the human being, I cannot present a full picture at this time. JSY>This would point to the fact that the three-fold unit (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) is where the origin of manifestation occurs, from our point of view ("our" being the human life wave.) This, on a higher level, would still present itself as manas for that given level, this being in total agreement with HPB when she stated that "Universal Mind ever IS." Therefore, in restatement, MANAS most certainly DOES reincarnate, however it does have Atma and Buddhi along with it, I agree in the same way that one has their Heart and Lung along with them when they decide to have a meal (which is consumed and processed by other organs in the body, most importantly the Stomach and Liver.) A bit of a crude analogy, perhaps. JSY>Jerry S. States that "Because manas is the human mind, and it is re-born each time. The causal body, the atma-buddhi, is the Reincarnating Ego which puts forth a new "ray" or manas at the beginning of each re-incarnation." The only difference here is that Jerry removes "Manas" from the Causal, making it Atma-Buddhi. I disagree with this since every model presented by every teaching that I've seen has the Noetic (or Mind) giving birth to the Psychic (or Kamic). Yes, Manas has to be included IMO. This is not only HPB's point of view, (see Glossary and Key to Theosophy) but in line with other teachings too and this tri-une atma-buddhi-manas concept appeals to me too for several reasons. JSY> Further, Manas is NOT the human mind, but Mind in total. The human mind is limited by the expression (or vehicle of expression) by which it is observed (in Kama.) This makes the human mind "Kama-Manas", not "Manas." I'm afraid I have to disagree here. Manas is the reincarnating principle in man. In one way you may be right, ie when you use Manas as a synonym of Mahat, universal Mind. In Theosophy we usually relate Manas to man as the reincarnating principle, however, or 'when qualified it is called by Theosophists Buddhi-Manas or the Spiritual Soul in contradistinction to its human reflection- Kama-Manas' (quote from HPB's Theosophical glossary). JSY>This presentation of incarnation appears substancially the same as mine, but I'd like to see if it does to you as well: > Let me phrase this differently. Let us assume the standpoint >of the human monad. It manifests from the Causal Body, or 'Atma-Buddhi-Manas' Let's say Buddhi-Manas. In this model, the keynote is that the 'Causal Vehicle' can be likened to the Kumaras, which are eternal virgins, through which manifestation occurs albeit without a direct affect upon them. Manifestation, or rebirth, of the monad occurs through them, but the causal vehicle is not caused (directly) by the monad (on this level of manifestation). I'm afraid you loose me here. JSY> Using "Cosmogenesis" for an example of "As Above, So Below", this appears to be, at least on the surface a restatement of "The Ray shoots through the Virgin Egg [the Causal Vehicle, or Atma-Buddhi-Manas]; the ray causes the eternal egg [the ayn-sof] to thrill, and drop the non-eternal (periodical [or reincarnating]) germ [the Monad], which condenses into the world-egg [the quarternary, or the composite, which becomes the Mental, Astral, and Physical bodies] Your analogy has some merit, I think. JSY>Using the above, I might present the possiblity that a) sub-races within Root-Races relate to Personas emitted from Manas b) Root Races within rounds relate to Manasic vehicles from Monads c) Rounds within Globes compare to Monads emitted from "Ayn Soph" I'm not so sure about that. There is however a development of qualities of consciousness (and elements manifested) in the root-race/rounds/globes scheme. That seems to be more involved than your correspondence suggests. IOW, there is far more to the root-race/rounds scheme than is apparent in your relational scheme. Food for thought. JSY>Question, do you think that the 'Egoic Lotus' model of Alice Bailey would coorilate very well to this. She shows three trinities, each nested within another, with a round multi-faceted center: The center would be the Manifesting ego (or the Monad) The first trinity would be the Causal Body (Atma-Buddhi-Manas) The second trinity would be the Astral/Mental unit (plus Prana) The third trinity would be The Sarina (Linga/Shula, plus Prana) It is long since I read Bailey, but trinities of all sorts seem to be an important factor in some models I've seen, so the above suits me fine as far as it goes. JSY>Max Heindel's coorilating model might be Center The Virgin Spirits First Trinity Divine/Life/Human spirit (as a group) Second trinity Soul (or Psyche from the greek) Third Trinity Body (et All) I've not studied Heindel to a large extent, but it seems more or less in agreement with the other schemes, allowing for translation of terms and concepts. You would have to define the terms used more sharply to bring about a clearer idea of correspondences, however. JSY>And this would therefore be in substantial agreement with Jerry when he says "If you look at it as body [sarina], soul [kama-manas], and spirit [causal], then only the spirit [causal vehicle, or Nous] survives and reincarnates, forming a new soul [Psyche] and new body each time. [remarks in square brackets are mine (JSY)] Yes, it looks that way. JSY>Do you think that the preceeding ideas are in substantial agreement with your studies and/or experience? Yes, more or less. I'm currently studying Vitvan who provides similar, but a bit clearer schemes than the above ones. When I'm back from my holiday I may present a scheme or two to you. It may be interesting to compare them with Jerry Schueler's scheme. Martin From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 3 23:38:21 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:38:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608032338.BAA11260@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Vacation Hi, I will be out of town from 5th to 9th of August. So if you don't see any posting of mine, you know the reason. Martin From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 3 23:49:49 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 00:49:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Maxim Osinovsky writes >Hello Sy: > >What you wrote about--I mean those expulsions--disturbs me very much, partly >because I am an Alice Bailey student, but mostly because I hate >restrictions of freedom. > >So I consulted the national bylaws as published in Early Autumn 1995 >issue of American Theosophist (AT) and John AlgeoFs articles in most >recent issues of AT to see what's going on. I thought I would jump in here, as you may not have seen the Adyar International Rules, which I can post to you or anyone else who wants them for reference. They are also the articles of incorporation of 1905. I obtained my copy fairly recently - like a couple of years ago. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 4 00:27:15 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:27:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Alan on reincarnation & karma In-Reply-To: <199608032338.BAA11255@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608032338.BAA11255@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser writes (Quoting Alan) >In my own analagous (kabbalist) way >of looking at it I would suspect that higher manas would overlap with >lower buddhi (if that makes any kind of doctrinal sense) :-) > > That makes perfect sense in the G de P model. In his model the planes >of nature overlap or resonate, forming subplanes and even sub-sub-planes. >Higher manas is evolved or given expression to along with lower buddhi. > I'm getting interested in your kabbalist way of looking:). Seriously, I do >know a little bit of Kabbalah but could use more info on it. Have to save up for my book then :-) > >>A>Not to put too fine a point on it, I think they are glamourising their >>findings. One question here is what do you understand by "astral body?" >> >> The kama-manas entity. > >Oh dear! I am primarily a Kabbalist - what is a kama-manas entity? > > Alan, I was talking about some spiritualist's descriptions of the >after-life. It looks like many of them say that the human soul, stripped of >its physical body and etheric vehicle (model-body) survives after death >and reincarnates again. Some of the descriptions I've read from them remind >me of the human personality (desire, thinking) stripped from its physical >attributes, hence my designating their 'astral', or, surviving soul, as >kama-manas. I see. No I do not think this reincarnates. > >Martin > > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 4 01:15:12 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 02:15:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Good news for some Mime-Version: 1.0 Dear all, Now that the TI-L list is up and running, I will only post the TI statement of intent to theos lists. In particular, the monthly membership update will appear only on TI-L and not on theos-buds. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sun Aug 4 01:55:40 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 18:55:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Alan, An opportunity to see the material you've referred to would be appreciated. I did not have a chance to see it. Max On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message 100000@library.berkeley.edu>, Maxim Osinovsky .edu> writes > >Hello Sy: > > > >What you wrote about--I mean those expulsions--disturbs me very much, partly > >because I am an Alice Bailey student, but mostly because I hate > >restrictions of freedom. > > > >So I consulted the national bylaws as published in Early Autumn 1995 > >issue of American Theosophist (AT) and John AlgeoFs articles in most > >recent issues of AT to see what's going on. > > I thought I would jump in here, as you may not have seen the Adyar > International Rules, which I can post to you or anyone else who wants > them for reference. They are also the articles of incorporation of > 1905. I obtained my copy fairly recently - like a couple of years ago. > > Alan > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age > TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html > (Note figure "one" after WWW) > From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Aug 4 03:02:17 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 20:02:17 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199608040302.UAA10943@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Important information on ATLANTIS For over 2 weeks there has been an ongoing discussion on Theos-l about the Mahatma Letters, science, Atlantis and Lemuria. It has been a good, thought-provoking discussion with all parties focusing on issues and ideas and with no name calling. Congratulations to all participants. This is a partial realization of what the Internet can REALLY BE! I copy below a message from "Blavatsky Net" about their new web site. I think Theos-l subscribers who have been following with interest the Atlantis discussion will find some very interesting material at Blavatsky Net. Daniel H. Caldwell Blavatsky Net's posting is as follows: >"Blavatsky Net" is pleased to join this conversation and announce a new web >site devoted to researching the writings of, and vindicating, H. P. >Blavatsky. The URL is www.blavatsky.org >As a contribution to the current discussion, Blavatsky Net has put online a >page on the subject of Atlantis. It can be found under the "Evidence >supportive of Theosophy" choice on the homepage. >Blavatsky Net will continue to add more information vindicating H. P. Blavatsky. >Best wishes to All - Scribe From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 10:37:58 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 06:37:58 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Goal of Meditation - Re-Member-ing the Real Message-Id: <960803103757_74024.3352_BHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> While trying to meditate on some of the ideas presented by Blavatsky in the VOS, I have tried to understand why we focus on the number 7 so much, particularly in regard to the 7 bodies as evidence of 7 levels of manifestation. Blavatsky and others spend a great deal of time reiterating the 7 levels from the microcosm of the individual to the macrocosm of cosmic evolution. I have tried to develop and intuitive approach and try to integrate some of the ideas and try to understand how they could be put to practical use. The idea came to me of that the various planes, globes, bodies etc are separated in the way white light is separated into the colored spectrum in a prism. The seven colors show how the primal unitive white light is separated in space and time for our eyes by the prism. The goal of meditation is to provide a second prism developed in our own mind that will recombine the colors into white light. When this happens, we can cross the rainbow bridge or the anathakara into the higher unitve white light state of consciousness variously described as sat-chit-ananada, truth (being)- mind and bliss as our real state. The seven portals, keys, and the golden stairs help create the diamond "body" that can recombine the stopped down colors into there higher state of unity.. This might be the philosopher's stone so often hinted at. The stone that can transmute the base elements of our plane to the spiritual gold of eternal value. Thus it takes a develpment or the uncovering of this inherent faculty through meditation. We then have access to akasha, ultimate complete wisdom beyond verbal thought. We can travel on the laser light to the universal holographic mind (to wax in the current jargon). Ken Wilber talks about the spectrum of consciousness and how our various senses and mental functions tune into the various levels almost like tuning a radio to specific frequency. The chakra system is the center of ancient and modern attempts to understand our consciousness and linked to various bodies in a non-mental way that is not centered in the brain or physical nervous system I realized that I must have heard this before in many places. I realized that a similar idea has probably been stated many times. The cave of shadow in Plato for one. And in I believe in Wordsworth, where he talks about the rose window splting the divine light into many colors. Thus what we take for reincarnation and acces to akasa may be a form of crytonesia or remembering things we heard or read in some simpler form. There seems a virture to balance every inherent vice in each of the bodies. !. Purity of the physcial body 2. Altruism in the emotional body 3. Slaying the tendency of the analytical mind to divide everything 4. Accessing the creative intuition 6. Meditation on wisdom beyond words 7. Linking them all to the will for compasionate loving service of evolution Each of the lower bodies can become a vehicle of the next higher and thus they are united to a single Will, rather than pulling oneself in 7 directions at once. Then one can become an active spiritual agent of the Real, as opposed to passive victim of the pull of the false, separated plane of illusion. Thus meditaion and perhaps all spiritual practice including analytical study of texts is an attempt to re-member, that is, put back the broken arms and legs of our divided illusory mayavic moral self on our whole eternal real spritiual immortal Self. WHen we touch the right things we are forced to reconstruct the memory or perhaps our future plan as unconscious image embedded deeply in us of our Real Self/ When we hear the Voice of the SIlence it is speaking to this Self. It is speaking to Itself. I AM THAT I AM. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 10:37:28 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 06:37:28 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Silence is Broken Message-Id: <960803103728_74024.3352_BHT58-1@CompuServe.COM> I'm sorry. I felt moved to send some posts for what they are worth. Let theos-roots know if you are listening in and how YOU want the discussion to proceed, Namaste Keith PRice From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 10:39:01 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 06:39:01 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: More on Symbolism in VOS Message-Id: <960803103900_74024.3352_BHT58-4@CompuServe.COM> The 7 levels are all vehicles for the active manifestation of divine will in very complicated and increasingly emeshed forms which crystalize as frozen spirit or matter as upadhi or container of the next higher level and provide support for the higher while the higher levels provide more complicated organization and levels of conscious movement, intention and response. The levels can be portrayed as both negative for the next higher and positve for the next lower + matter contains energy - +energy contains life- + life contains movement and response- +response contains emotion- +emotion contains choice- +choice contains mind- +mind contains self-consciousness- +selfconsciousness contains intuition +intuition contains spirit +spirit contains Oneness Going downward; Oneness manifests in spirit+ -spirit manifests in inintuition+ -intuition manifests in self-consciousness + -self-consciousness manifests in mind- -mind manifests choice and response + -choice and response manifest in motivation and movement + -motivation and movement manifest in life+ - life manifests in matter Though this symbolism may be familiar to the long time student of theosophy, I thought I might restate it in a simplified form for the students (like me) confused by the historical context and Sanskrit (Senzar-inspired) terminology which the modern student may be loathe to deal with directily. Thus the VOS is dealing with climbing Golden Stairs of matter into Spirit and opening the 7 portal or levels of Human and Cosmic Mind, but does it in terminology that keeps ISIS (divine wisdom-theo- SOPHIA the goddess of gnostic wisdom, very well unveiled and wrapped in heavy sometime for me, impenetrable robes. Yet it is promised that for the true aspirant - will, love and wisdom will be revealed, unveiled. (I think VOS, is an ideal choice for cyber-study. Can you imagine the logistics of 5 paragraph posts on ISIS UNVEILED). Namate Keith PRice From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 10:38:40 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 06:38:40 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Intuition - Cryptonesia - VOS Message-Id: <960803103840_74024.3352_BHT58-3@CompuServe.COM> While trying to meditate on some of the ideas presented by Blavatsky in the VOS, I have tried to understand why we focus on the number 7 so much, particularly in regard to the 7 bodies as evidence of 7 levels of manifestation. Blavatsky and others spend a great deal of time reiterating the 7 levels from the microcosm of the individual to the macrocosm of cosmic evolution. I have tried to develop and intuitive approach and try to integrate some of the ideas and try to understand how they could be put to practical use. The idea came to me of that the various planes, globes, bodies etc are separated in the way white light is separated into the colored spectrum in a prism. The seven colors show how the primal unitive white light is separated in space and time for our eyes by the prism. The goal of meditation is to provide a second prism developed in our own mind that will recombine the colors into white light. When this happens, we can cross the rainbow bridge or the anathakara into the higher unitve white light state of consciousness variously described as sat-chit-ananada, truth (being)- mind and bliss as our real state. The seven portals, keys, and the golden stairs help create the diamond body that can recombine the stopped down colors into there higher state of unity.. Thus it takes a develpment or the uncovering of this inherent faculty through meditation. We then have access to akasha, ultimate complete wisdom beyond verbal thought. We can travel on the laser light to the universal holographic mind (to wax in the current jargon). Ken Wilber talks about the spectrum of consciousness and how our various senses and mental functions tune into the various levels almost like tuning a radio to specific frequency. The chakra system is the center of ancient and modern attempts to understand our consciousness and linked to various bodies in a non-mental way that is not centered in the brain or physical nervous system I realized that I must have heard this before. I realized that a similar idea has probably been stated many times. The cave of shadow in Plato for one. And in I believe in Wordsworth, where he talks about the rose window splting the divine light into many colors. Thus what we take for reincarnation and acces to akasa may be a form of crytonesia or remembering things we heard or read in some simpler form. Many UFO abductions are explained as cryptonesia of 1950's science fiction films like "Invaders from Mars" etc. Yet it maybe a truer type of cryptonesia of actually accesing hidden memories from other levels and even past lives, but in a "dreamlike" non-objective form. Thus I am trying to approach the VOS with my intuition open to the poetry of the notions Blavatsky is expressing regarding her experience with the VOS. We must assume that she as experienced for herself or she would not want to write about it. Purifying the bodies and travelling through the "laya centers" are critical states is suggested as a way to reach the higher levels of the VOS. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 3 10:39:37 1996 Date: 03 Aug 96 06:39:37 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Number and Modal Symbolism in VOS Message-Id: <960803103936_74024.3352_BHT58-5@CompuServe.COM> UY-horitzontally, vertically and three dimensionally etc. Each level is a holorachy complete intself but implies the possbilility of a heirarchicaly connection. The symbolism of numbers and positive and negative modes is present throught the VOICE OF THE SILENCE and in most other occult systems such as astrology, numerology and tarot. The number 7 going up and down can be pictured as a triangle with base at the bottom. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Or starting with 7 as primary and descending , as an inverted triangle O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Thes triangles are often associated with the ascent to matter or evolution and the inverted triangle as descent into matter from spirit or involution or sometimes emmanation. Placed on top of one anothr they make a pleasing (or here not so pleasing, I did this on MSWORD and it got crunched -sorry!) diamond shape of a mirroring of as above (heavan-unmanifest-paratma) so below (earth - manifest- purusha. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Notice that this arrangement has great potential energy like the polarity of the earth and the sky BEFORE a lightening flash. The two interlaced triangles make the six pointed star so frequent in spiritual symbolism. In theosophy this represents the whirling active manifestation of spirit in matter and the state of the world and man as a dynamic mixture of both spirit and matter. male and female (so may not like this symbolism) positive and negative, yin and yang etc. O O O I O O O O O I O I O O O I O I O I O I O I O I O I I O I O I O I O I I I O I O I O I I I I I O I O I I I O Notice that the state here is more like AFTER the lightening flash. Notice that the + spirit sybmolized by I is more directly linked in altenating patterns with - negative matter symbolized by O. We now have the patter IOIOIOIOIOIO horizontally across the holorachical level and vetically up and down the hierarchical level as I O I O i Notice how the mirroring imagery of the two triangle on top of each other implies a dynamic potential like a battery fully charged. The interlaced triangles imply the result of the electical spark in movement as actual movement of energy, rather than static potential The linking symbolism is obvious as the polarity allows creativity to manifest as more and more mixed and complicated forms where matter and spirit become more and more involved and evolved.. The movement of these potentialities can allow a restructuring for the creation of higher and lower level and movement between them.. Man as self-conscious being can manifest as intentional creativity by the intentional manipulation of the elemental polarities. Thes can be manifest as !. physical procreation 2. emotional response - such as music and art, love and hate etc 3. analytical thought - practical mind 4. social structuring and governments -social mind 5. religious and intellectual organization and thought - social higher mind 6. intuition and spiritual development - individual connection to higher levels 7 unitive type states of the six levels or as an ultimate ONENESS The VOICE OF THE SILENCE is rich in such symbolism and the meditation methods and symbolism of the virtues and paramitas are rich in the idea of reuniting the six levels by restructuring their potential energies and linking them unltimately to a primal oneness and will, love and wisdom. When this is done, it is suggested that an evolutionary step is possible and an acces to higher state of will, love and wisdom will manifest in the life and being of the student. Namaste Keith Price From blafoun@azstarnet.com Sun Aug 4 03:02:17 1996 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 20:02:17 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@AZStarNet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Message-Id: <199608040302.UAA10943@web.azstarnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Important information on ATLANTIS For over 2 weeks there has been an ongoing discussion on Theos-l about the Mahatma Letters, science, Atlantis and Lemuria. It has been a good, thought-provoking discussion with all parties focusing on issues and ideas and with no name calling. Congratulations to all participants. This is a partial realization of what the Internet can REALLY BE! I copy below a message from "Blavatsky Net" about their new web site. I think Theos-l subscribers who have been following with interest the Atlantis discussion will find some very interesting material at Blavatsky Net. Daniel H. Caldwell Blavatsky Net's posting is as follows: >"Blavatsky Net" is pleased to join this conversation and announce a new web >site devoted to researching the writings of, and vindicating, H. P. >Blavatsky. The URL is www.blavatsky.org >As a contribution to the current discussion, Blavatsky Net has put online a >page on the subject of Atlantis. It can be found under the "Evidence >supportive of Theosophy" choice on the homepage. >Blavatsky Net will continue to add more information vindicating H. P. Blavatsky. >Best wishes to All - Scribe From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sun Aug 4 07:31:52 1996 Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 19:31:52 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960805014408.1b0f2eee@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: What's next in the movement Richard, >. . . And speaking of watching, Jerry, I think that the last >one-person-in-a-trillion who might have been interested in watching us >debate this stuff has just left audience. . . . > Can I put my hand up here? There have been some big gaps in my access to theos-l over the last few months, but I keep finding that despite the first few milliseconds of feeling that each of your posts on psychogenetics is jargon-laden and too hard for me, I then go on to find that most of it actually makes sense; to be real condensation nuclei for many of the ways I regard the innerscape, to gather around. >The biggest stumbling block seems to be getting other people to regard >something they see, taste, touch, smell or hear as a temporary >ego-formation ("physical'--e.g., "I am my toothache"), or something they >want as another type of ego-formation ("desire-feeling"--e.g., "I am my >craving for pizza") or like/dislike-tainted idea as still another type of >ego-formation ("desire-mental"--e.g., "I am my gut-opposition to >abortion") etc. > I dunno. It seems really obvious to me that consciousness is forever playing games of identifying itself with something or somestate, and then bouncing out and doing it again in another way. I find this particularly evident in meditation. In little loops within bigger ones, too. The big loops are evolutionary stages and the little ones are hour-to-hour or even second-by-second, and other stages in between like a fractal. The whole machinery of the layers or qualities in which this happens is something I won't go into here; for one thing, I'm feeling my way into an experiential appreciation of it wherein I welcome inputs such as your own, but try to keep my ideas as open and flexible as possible, ready for more inputs and discoveries. But I believe this dance of the point or area of identification is key to an understanding of so many theosophical ideas. For instance, the avidya or ignorance of our "true" nature is where the circle of identification is small and, perhaps you could say, in a relatively dense arena of manifestation. Another thing, meditation is in a way the attempt to widen and somewhat etherialise the area of identification; it can happen a little or a lot, as in the ultimate states when our area of identification is virtually cosmos-wide. There's an input side to it, ie perceptual, affecting the horizon of perception, and an output side of action across the planes, too, thinking of the saying that where attention goes, energy flows. Anyway, your concept of ego-formations coming in and out of existence is just so apt, I find. I would add thoughts of polarities and energy flows to it all, too. These ideas illuminate reincarnation as well, but before I cross over into Alan's interests, I'd better sign off for now. Well, I must be a bit weird too, then. Does that make 3 in a trillion? Hah! ... Maybe not. Murray Member TI and the TS in NZ From euser@euronet.nl Sun Aug 4 10:55:24 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 12:55:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608041055.MAA13441@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: re: reincarnation & terminology Jerry S>As I see it, the globes, bodies, and planes are pretty much fixed and definite objective "things." The principles, however, are subjective and they can shift and mix together. So we can talk about atma-buddhi-manas, and higher manas, and kama-manas, and so on because the principles mix together pretty well and can temporarily combine in many ways as our consciousness shifts around. This is very confusing to newbies, and I am not at all sure how to explain it to them. It is often confusing to long-time theosophists too :) Personally I like to think in terms of music (vibrations). The bodies can be attuned to different vibrations ('principles' or qualities of energy). That is a simple and hopefully adequate picture. The more esoteric view is that the bodies consist themselves of energy-vibrations and can be refined (transfigurated). In the final (?) analysis we're left with energy operating on or within or through energy structures (forms, patterns) and this is in accord with science, although scientists have not generally accepted consciousness as a form of energy, I think. Martin From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 4 12:14:46 1996 Date: 04 Aug 96 08:14:46 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Message-Id: <960804121446_72724.413_FHP29-1@CompuServe.COM> On Aug 3, Maxim Osinovsky wrote: "Hello Sy, What you wrote about--I mean those expulsions--disturbs me very much, partly because I am an Alice Bailey student, but mostly because I hate restrictions of freedom." He then went on to cite sections of the national bylaws demonstrating the power and control of the national section over TSA lodges. The situation is worse than Max surmises. The purported bylaws as revised in January give Wheaton even more draconian power over members and lodges than heretofore. Purported bylaw 4, section 9 from which Max quotes is one of the revisions. Purported bylaw 9 concerning Lodges, Study Centers and Federations was changed even more drastically. However, these changes and the entire bylaw referendum was challenged by myself and 6 other Lodge Presidents (3 of whom are lawyers), with official notification to TSA officers and directors in December, 1995, because of numerous irregularities in the procedure for passage of these changes. In our view the changes could not be adopted validly by the membership of TSA for want of a proper submission. The TSA officers and directors have disagreed with our objections and assume the purported bylaws as revised are valid. We contend they are not. I first began to look into the reason for these purported bylaw revisions when they were announced to the delegates to the TSA national convention in July 1995, which I attended. The primary reason given me then was because of what happened at the Boston lodge, and the perceived need to tighten TSA national control over local lodges. Max, you should know that although the Boston lodge was expalled by Wheaton, it continues on now indepedently, with a large and active membership (about 65 members). What is behind all this is, in my view, the attempt to change the Theosophical Society internationally and nationally from the top down into what is legally known as an episcopal organization, instead of a congregational one. In October, 1995, I wrote a letter to various members of our Society and I also attempted to have it published in the American Theosophist. To explain the problem that we face, I will quote from it in part: Proposed Bylaw Changes #15, #16, #17 and #9 Pose a Real Threat to the T.S.A. by Sy Ginsburg, J.D., President, Miami Branch When disputes arise in a spiritual organization between a governing body and its constituent branches, the courts have traditionally looked to see if the organization is episcopal or congregational in determining who controls. From a legal perspective, an episcopal organization is seen as one in which control of both assets and teaching emanates from the highest level and is, in turn, disseminated through a hierarchy. The Roman Catholic Church with its hierarchy of pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests is an example of an episcopal organization as is the Episcopal (Anglican) Church. In congregational organizations, on the other hand, control over assets and teaching rests in the assembly of each local congregation. Many protestant denominations are congregational. The Theosophical Society has historically been a congregational organization. This is because the only membership requirement is to be in sympathy with the 3 declared objects of the Society, which have stood for over 100 years. These objects encourage complete freedom of inquiry, and enable the Theosophical society to exist without dogma. When members have banded together in a Branch, the Branch has historically had the same right of freedom as its members. Where Branches are incorporated as is the Miami Branch, these freedoms are traditionally expressed in the Charter and Bylaws of the corporation. Proposed Bylaw changes #15, #16, #17 and related #9, if ratified, will change all this. These proposals will completely alter the nature of the Theosophical Society in America (TSA) from a congregational organization to an episcopal organization, controlled from the top. The national Board of Directors in its genuine concern over loss of the Boston Branch and its assets, has approved these proposed changes to protect the Society from such further losses. But in doing so, they are unwittingly doing far more damage to the TSA than would be caused by the loss of a Branch. While these proposed changes #15, #16 and #17 are aimed at control over Branch assets by TSA, they will along with absolute control over membership granted the TSA national Board by proposed Bylaw change #9, also allow TSA to exert its control over what is taught. This is in complete opposition to the declared objects. The TSA at present does not have control over what is taught at Branches. In a recent article, "What Do We Study, What Do We Teach?" by President John Algeo (The American Theosophist, Late Summer, 1995), John wrote, "if we are a Theosophical group, that group must also give time, energy and attention to studying Theosophy, not just Sufism from a Theosophical perspective or The Wizard of Oz as a Theosophical allegory, but Theosophy itself." I basically agree with John, and at the Miami Branch we currently offer 4 Theosophical study groups including one on "The Secret Doctrine", another on "Light on the Path" and yet another on "Theosophical History." In the past year we have also offered study groups on "The Voice of the Silence" and "The Mahatma Letters." These are among 24 study groups currently offered at the Miami Branch. But what our Branch offers are decisions taken at the local level. They are the will of the members of our Branch. Once the proposed Bylaw changes are adopted, it will be possible for a future President of TSA, less democratically inclined than John Algeo, to say to a Branch, "You not only "must" study certain Theosophical teaching, but you "will" study them. It will be possible for a future President to say to a Branch, "you no longer will offer study groups on Astrology, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Tarot, etc." What we can see happening now, as illustrated by Max's posting, is that as time goes on, members not familiar with the issues and with the improprieties in attempting to have the national bylaws revised, will just assume that this is how the TS is. The issue will be lost in the fullness of time, because the TSA national officers and directors have simply decided that the purported bylaw changes are valid, and intend to operate under them. New members will know nothing about the issue. But as controls are eventually tightened over what is studied and taught in local Lodges, people not even knowing this is an issue, will likely drop away from the Society. Prospective new members who join the TS as I did in 1978 because of the freedoms embedded in the 3 declared objects, will either not join or if they do join, will resign when they discover that the 3 declared objects are not adhered to. It is difficult for me to understand why our officers and directors on a national level, and similarly, why our officers and the general council at the international level, want to preside over the diminishment into insignificance of the Theosophical Society, which is already happening. This is why the meeting in St. Louis, October 5, 1996, is really important. Those of us who honor the 3 declared objects and who have some familiarity with the changes attempted by national and international officers and directors need to come together in our support of freedom of thought as embodied in the 3 declared objects. Sy From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Aug 4 16:11:21 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:11:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Maxim Osinovsky wrote: > Hello Sy: > > What you wrote about--I mean those expulsions--disturbs me very much, partly > because I am an Alice Bailey student, but mostly because I hate > restrictions of freedom. Maxim: There were a lot of messages here at the time the bylaws were voted on in December 1995. Regarding the cancellation of charters, no one has questioned whether anyone has broken any bylaws. It is not the issue. When anyone wanted to find out about the cancellations, I have not seen any specific information coming forth. It is this kind of secrecy why certain decision was taken is raising questions. Why secrecy? What is the problem in laying facts in the open. Before the advent of Internet, what is happening in one part of the country or one part of the world no one (I mean ordinary members like many of us here) outside that particular area knew. For example when there were problems in Yugoslavia, the members in Denmark knew about it only after two years; yes two years. Internet is shining a lot of light and with almost instant communication, things are going to change, whether one likes it or not. In the 1900 letter to Mrs. Besant, Master KH, put out a warning that unnecessary secrecy has killed many organizations. I think this is very interesting. Whether one believes in the letter or the author, I think the statement may have some relevance to TS. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 4 16:53:35 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 12:53:35 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960804125334_449103137@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Alan, It might be a good idea to post them to the entire list if possible. We have a copy here, but Gerda keeps mislaying it. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 4 16:50:40 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 12:50:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960804125039_449103150@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Important information on ATLANTIS I'll put a link to it on my web page. Chuck the Heretic From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 4 16:56:45 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 17:56:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >In the 1900 letter to Mrs. Besant, Master KH, put out a warning that >unnecessary secrecy has killed many organizations. I think this is very >interesting. Whether one believes in the letter or the author, I think >the statement may have some relevance to TS. Maybe it's time to post the letter again, Doss? There seem to be a few newcomers to the list ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sun Aug 4 17:43:00 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 10:43:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Yes, please post it again. Just to remind you--archived theos-l material before 960409 is not available (or is it?), so the newcomers to the list may be missing some crucial information. Max On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message , > "m.k. ramadoss" writes > >In the 1900 letter to Mrs. Besant, Master KH, put out a warning that > >unnecessary secrecy has killed many organizations. I think this is very > >interesting. Whether one believes in the letter or the author, I think > >the statement may have some relevance to TS. > > Maybe it's time to post the letter again, Doss? There seem to be a few > newcomers to the list ... > > Alan > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age > TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html > (Note figure "one" after WWW) > From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sun Aug 4 17:56:03 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 10:56:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thanks to Sy, Jim, and Doss for responding to my email re: Freedom of Thought. It clarifies a lot. I came to this country (the U.S.) in 1989, and joined TSA in 1991, so I am not knowledgeable about what happened before 1991. I subscribed to theos-l several weeks ago so I did not have a chance to follow the Boston affair. Also, old theos-l digests are availavle in the online archive only beginning 960409... The third reason why I turned out to be an ignoramus, is that these issues were not given enough consideration in our local Logde (Oakland, Calif.). Although I was elected a couple of times a Lodge's Secretary, and am now Vice-President, I did not realize there was a very serious problem, although of course I heard about 'frictions.' I hope it's going to change soon; our Lodge is determined to investigate its position on the issue, and we are sending a representative to Missouri in October. I think not only me but other Lodge members are confused and would like to know more to make an informed decision. I am surpised that so many expulsions occured because of people being interetsed in Alice Bailey's teachings. I would like to remind that Arcane School is NOT a membership organization, consequently it's not a rival organization. So conversion of an entire Lodge to "Baileyism" is NOT a takeover by Arcane School. It seems like this is a purely ideological question,--hardly a personal matter since Alice Bailey has passed 47 years ago. It's expressly stated policy of Arcane School that if some people form a local group and call it an "Alice Bailey group," it's entirely their own matter; Arcane School does not endorse them, and they under no circumstances can claim they are "representatives" of Arcane School or a "branch" of Arcane school or an "Arcane School study group." Arcane School is adamant about it, and all its students all warned against it. Also, it's good to keep in mind that Arcane School does not allow its workers and students to claim they are "initiates" of any degree (Alice Bailey called herself 'a disciple'), which seems to be reasonable in the aftermath of what was going on in TS in '10s and '20s. Sy wrote: >Once the proposed Bylaw changes >are adopted, it will be possible for a future President of TSA, less >democratically inclined than John Algeo, to say to a Branch, "You not only >"must" study certain Theosophical teaching, but you "will" study them. It will >be possible for a future President to say to a Branch, "you no longer will offer >study groups on Astrology, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Tarot, etc." An episode related by Alice Bailey in her autobiography (p.176) illustrates a worse model of what may happen in the future in TSA: "After that completely shocking annual convention of the T.S in Chicago, [in 1920] Foster [her husband] and I returned to Krotona utterly disillusioned, profoundly convinced that the T.S. was run strictly on personal lines, with the emphasis upon personality status, upon personality devotions, upon personality likes and dislikes and upon the imposition of personality decisions upon a mass of personality followers. We simply did not know what to do or along what line to work. Mr. Warrington was no longer president of the society and Mr.L.W.Rogers suceeded him. My husband was still national secretary and I was still editor of the national magazine and chairman of the Krotona committee. "I shall never forget the morning when, upon his assumption of office, Mr.Rogers took over, we went up to his office to tender to him our desire to continue to serve the T.S. Mr.Rogers looked at us and asked the question, "Is there any way which you can think, by which you can be of service to me?"" At the same time I feel--as many others do--that a proper balance is to struck between inclusiveness and theosophival values. This is a real issue to deal with. But, of course, the issue is to be resolved on the basis of cooperation and goodwill and freedom of thought rather than by issuing orders and anathemas. Sy and Jim: I still did not hear anything about references to OFFICIAL documents or announcements or decisions or whatever, related to the expulsions. Max From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Aug 4 21:09:43 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:09:43 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960804161324.243f0aec@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: 1900 Letter The following is the last letter that was received from KH by Annie Besant in 1900. A redacted version was published in the Letters from Masters of Wisdom by CJ. Even if anyone is questioning the author of the letter, still I believe the letter has some very important relevance even today. But for theos-l, it would not have received the wide circulation that it has gotten world wide. I hope those who have not seen this letter may find it interesting. ============================================================================ ======== THE 1900 LETTER A psychic and a pranayamist who has got confused by the vagaries of the members. The T.S. and its members are slowly manufacturing a creed. Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity breeds credulity and ends in hypocrisy." How few are they who can know anything about us. Are we to be propitiated and made idols of. Is the worship of a new Trinity made up of the Blessed M., Upasika and yourself to take the place of exploded creeds. We ask not for the worship of ourselves. The disciple should in no way be fettered. Beware of an Esoteric Popery. The intense desire to see Upasika reincarnate at once has raised a misleading Mayavic ideation. Upasika has useful work to do on higher planes and cannot come again so soon. The T.S. must safely be ushered into the new century. You have for some time been under deluding influences. Shun pride, vanity and love of power. Be not guided by emotion but learn to stand alone. Be accurate and critical rather than credulous. The mistake of the past in the old religions must not be glossed over with imaginary explanations. The E.S.T. must be reformed so as to be as unsectarian and creedless as the T.S. The rules must be few and simple and acceptable to all. No one has the right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what he believes. All who are sincere and pure minded must have admittance. The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S. We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another. At favourable times we let loose elevating influences which strike various persons in various ways. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give the correct note of action. We show no favours. The best corrective of error is an honest and open-minded examination of all facts subjective and objective. Misleading secrecy has given the death blow to numerous organizations. The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part. Namelessly and silently we work and the continual references to ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a confused aura that hinders our work. You will have to leave a good deal of your emotions and credulity before you become a safe guide among the influences that will commence to work in the new cycle. The T.S. was meant to be the corner- stone of the future religions of humanity. To accomplish this object those who lead must leave aside their weak predilections for the forms and ceremonies of any particular creed and show themselves to be true Theosophists both in inner thoughts and outward observances. The greatest of your trials is yet to come. We watch over you but you must put forth all your strength. K.H. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 4 17:30:59 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 18:30:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960804125334_449103137@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960804125334_449103137@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >It might be a good idea to post them to the entire list if possible. We have >a copy here, but Gerda keeps mislaying it. > >Chuck the Heretic It's fairly long, so I will sne dit to those who ask for it - not everyone is interested in rules. However, as Gerda keeps mislating yours, I will copy it to you, and you can (I imagine) save it to disk. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From RIhle@aol.com Sun Aug 4 23:35:30 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:35:30 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960804193529_171671951@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The CAP >(Murray Stentiford) Richard Ihle writes>> >>The biggest stumbling block seems to be getting other people to regard >>something they see, taste, touch, smell or hear as a temporary >>ego-formation ("physical'--e.g., "I am my toothache"), or something they >>want as another type of ego-formation ("desire-feeling"--e.g., "I am my >>craving for pizza") or like/dislike-tainted idea as still another type of >>ego-formation ("desire-mental"--e.g., "I am my gut-opposition to [gut-supported >>reasons for opposing] abortion") etc. Murray Stentiford writes> >I dunno. It seems really obvious to me that consciousness is forever playing >games of identifying itself with something or somestate, and then bouncing >out and doing it again in another way. I find this particularly evident in >meditation. In little loops within bigger ones, too. The big loops are >evolutionary stages and the little ones are hour-to-hour or even >second-by-second, and other stages in between like a fractal. > Richard Ihle writes> Thank you ~very~ much for sharing this, Murray. Actually, my original intention for bringing these subjects up on theos-l was the hope that "Psychogenesis" could come into being as some sort of "collaborative product": that a consensual terminology would gradually emerge and that the thus-far primitive understandings of the possible analogical correspondences between it and Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis would be improved and corrected by the many on this list who have far greater scholarly mastership of the latter pair of components than I do. Then I woke up. I woke up, I guess, mainly because of the capital ~T~ issue. As you know, for convenience sake or something, "lay-public usage," has apparently succeeded in establishing the "fact" that ~Theosophy~ is a synonym for HPB's writings (or those understandings which can be "corroberated" by them). By enthusiastically endorsing this "past-practice semanticizing," unfortunately, some of the worthiest scholars who I had been thinking could help with a fuller articulation of Psychogenesis seem clearly in the camp of those who think that "Theosophy" has been a done-deal for more than a hundred years. However, in my mind at least, HPB did not leave the Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP) in the condition of being any kind of done-deal. As Jerry Schueler often points out, even Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis (HPB's most complete contributions) have room for expansion/modification; however, Psychogenesis, which HPB begins to address when she slides into talking about ~manas~, human principles, etc., she more or less clearly invites us to further develop--"find the Psychological Key" etc. I believe that the PTP will not be complete until it is fully wearable as a "CAP"--that is, includes Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis. To accomplish this, it would be nice if more people who actually know something about the intricacies of the Rounds, Root Races, Sub-Races etc. could rise above the limitation of ~Theosophy = HPB's Finished Bible~ and help determine, by discussion and debate, the (if any) exact analogical correspondences between these subjects and possible realities at the psychological level. ~Analogy~ should not be a dirty word in theosophy; neither, I believe, should it be only a one way street--i.e. that the micro only points to possible knowledge of the macro. In THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, HPB herself says: "The name Theosophy dates from the third century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his disciples, also called Analogeticists, [. . .] they were called so because of their practice of interpreting all sacred legends and narratives, myths and mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and correspondence: [. . . .]" Can Cosmogensis and Anthropogenesis themselves be thought of as "sacred legend, narrative, myth and mystery"? Perhaps all or in part, yes; perhaps all or in part, no. One thing I am sure of, however, is that when I began to (undoubtedly influenced by Gurdjieff) make the "slight readjustment" which allowed me to start regarding all my animating, physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual experiences as possible "egos" ("semi-Selves," "psyches") coming into and going out of existence (one at a time, please), C and A became unbelievable analogical treasure-troves for the development of a P for sure. While the idea of "egoic delusions" (I suppose one might sooner or latter have to start calling them ~psyches~ to be consistent with the term ~Psychogenesis~--i.e., that the incarnated experience is really one of progressive unfoldment of potential categories of psyches within oneself at ever-more rarefied levels of consciousness) can certainly be found in places other than Theosophy (the org./move.), only THE SECRET DOCTRINE, as far as I know, provides by analogy the secret "psychomaturational" pattern for them. Yes, the ~I am~ can be temporarily deluded into considering itself something animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, mental, or Spirit mental--but NOT until it has passed into the necessary septenary cycle, and NOT at the upper levels of this sequence unless the Self-awareness has become a subtle-enough instrument to continue to discriminate between Itself as Witness and the psyches formed in and of the "contaminated" condition of consciousness it is attempting to witness. I call this latter development ~Degree of Self-awareness~ . . . and for now, I claim that it is the Psychogenetic analog of the Anthropogenetic ~Root Race~. . . . (For example, one needs to be a Sixth Degree person in order to have at least the potential to prevent full-egoic delusion at the Fifth Level.) Unfortunately, Murray, the most down-to-earth component of the PTP always seems to turn into the same kind of nightmare of uninviting verbiage as the cosmos-building and translifetime components. This is especially irritating since the insights Psychogenesis provides are so day-to-day practical and useful. For example, I still hear "parenting experts" giving advice about how even very young children should be ~given reasons~ in order to make them behave in desired ways. "Given reasons?" I think to myself. "Well, let me think: According to Psychogenesis, there is no chance that the child will be able to have any true ego-involvement with reasons until the Desire-Mental Cycle, age 21-28. At the earliest, this potential will start showing itself somewhere near the mid-point of the previous cycle, age 17 1/2." (I believe the order of the cycles are invariable but that the ages suggested are probably just for general convenience--i.e., wide approximations; it could be considerably earlier than 17 1/2 for some; who knows?). The child, at let's say age 10, can be given reasons, understand reasons, and have his or her mental development be improved by reasons; however, it is unlikely that this child will be convinced that reasons have anything to do with his or her inner identity. It will not be until the child is much older that a psyche (ego-formation) can be formed which resembles something like this: ~I REALLY AM my idea/mental strategy that by posponing my desire to go out and to do homework instead I will be able to attain my greater future desire of getting into Stanford~. No, Psychogenesis suggests that the ten-year-old so-far has only two Levels at which psyches may temporarily form: animating and physical. If there is "spunk" involved with the behavior problem, chances are that is the latter. The wise parent might be advised to forget the fancy stuff and not be ashamed just to employ what has probably always been the only successful operating principle of the Physical Cycle: AUTHORITY--the big (more powerful) gets to boss the small (less powerful). (Unfortunately, this won't work very well in a few short years when the child starts forming psyches which may resemble something of this nature: ~I REALLY AM my desire to go out and therefore regard your use of parental authority to thwart this as an attack on my true identity--feelings~.) Older adults, of course, have psychomatured through enough cycles to make assessments like the foregoing a little more difficult: there are more Levels at which temporary psyches may now form and pass away. Still, with just a modest amount of practice, becomes almost embarrassingly easy to make a good guess about who-is-where-at-what-moment (and that includes oneself, first and foremost). Is this "Adeptship"? Well, perhaps not in its entirety. However, it is hard to imagine that the entirety of Adeptship is possible without this practical psychological component, either. All-in-all, Murray, for the moment it sort of looks like I may be slipping back into my old dream--viz., that multiple contributors on theos-l might be surprised one day to look up and see that somehow, in the midst of all their discussions and arguments, the Principal Theosophical Philosophy has become a perfectly reasonable-looking CAP. Needless to say, it was great encouragement for me to learn that you have already been thinking and working in this direction. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Aug 5 00:54:43 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 17:54:43 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608050054.AA15326@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: re: Did Jesus exist? Paul K. Wrote: >Regarding the various arguments of when Jesus lived or - whether >he even existed... > >I find it interesting, given that the early Christian had so >many enemies between both Jews and Romans that no one seems to >have brought up the issue in the early days. Consider -- the >canonical gospels, which were (according to mant scholars) >around in one form or another by the early second century. If >indeed the stories in them were a total fabrication in the sense >that Jesus either didn't exist or existed a hundred years >earlier, why didn't some enemies of the Christians catch on to >this and trumpet the news throughout the Roman empire? The Jews >were certainly interested in slandering Jesus the best they >could - A rumour, quoted by Origen, was in circulation around >150 AD that Jesus was an illegitemate child of Miriam and a >Roman soldier Pantera. It's hard for me to believe that the >Christian's enemies never suggested that the entire person was a >fabrication - if indeed that was the case. It's just too good an >opportunity to miss. > >Paul K JHE Actually the issue of early Christian "enemies" (would critics be a better term?) came up rather early in this discussion. Abrantes and I came to the agreement that the winner of a struggle gets to write its history. In this case, the Christians won over their critics. As a result, there is precious little documentation concerning Christianity's forerunners and rivals except from the early church father's point of view. The Nag Hammadi find, though a drop in the bucket in comparison to what has been lost, has thrown a great deal of light on the subject, but there is much yet to discover. The Jesus ben Panthera "rumor" is an example. Though we can trace this "rumor" to at least 70 A.D. and that the Rabbi's claimed the information to have been taken from actual temple records, we no longer have those records, and thanks to the Christian persecution of the Jews, our earliest actual surviving fragment of the Panthera story dates only to the thirteenth century. As for the extant documentation of challenges against the Church, most of this is covered in Blavatsky's ISIS UNVEILED, when serves as the central core of this discussion. Therefore, I agree that the question of the historicity of Jesus was "too good of an opportunity to miss," and I submit that it indeed was not passed up. But by the fourth century, the political tide changed and the Church saw to it that most of those challenges were erased from historical memory. Of course we have records of refutations written from the point of view of the victorious Church: but concerning the records of the loosing factions, we have only the slightest traces of evidence that they ever existed at all. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 73632.105@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 5 02:53:04 1996 Date: 04 Aug 96 22:53:04 EDT From: "Frank J. Dyer" <73632.105@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Kabbalah Message-Id: <960805025304_73632.105_FHV94-2@CompuServe.COM> James wrote: >To finish the model, Ye sod & Malthus would compose the 'Sarina'. In the >model referred to from the book of Trees, Ye sod and Malthus are again >combined as a single circle with two dots. This would simply show the >close >embrace between the emeric double and the Physical body. > Using Bailey terminology, could the following be accurate: >- Plane - Shifrah >Adi = Kezer (Crown) >Monadic = Chainman (Wisdom) >At mic = Binah (understanding) > Budd hic = Ches ed-Guevara-Teferi (Love-Strength-Beauty) >Mental = Hod (Splendor) [& Elo heim Tzevaot] >Astral = Net zach [& Ado nay Tzevaot] >Physical = Ye sod-Malthus [& El Shanda - Ado nay] >The prior posts on reincarnation (or embodiment) would be good sources >of >doctoring to discuss in conjunction with the above. This should provide >enough material for you to work from "Should you choose to accept this >assignment ;)" I hope that Fellows not fluent in Kabalas could bear >with >this, as this should exercise our use of "Freedom of thought". Besides, >this is an attempt to "Get Real", as Alan suggested. Starting with no >past >ideas about your viewpoints (so that you aren't "Bemused"), please show >us >how a 40+ year veteran of kabbalistic thought would explain the concepts. > james With all due respect, The Kabbalah is a highly esoteric collection of doctrines and *orally transmitted* tradition entrusted to a group of adepts reincarnated within the Jewish community of Europe and Asia Minor. A number of non Jewish seekers, notably Picco Della Miran dola, Johannes Reaching, and Knorring Ivon Rosen roth, attempted to translate/adapt the Kabbalah for the wider community of seekers. This has resulted, IMHO, in an undue emphasis on the Etz Chaim, a glyph popularly attributed to the archangel Metatron. This emphasis is *misplaced*. For the real essence of Kabbalah, one should look to sources such as Rabbi Chaim Vital, Rabbi Yatzeck Luria (the Ari), and Rabbi Moses Cordovero. Rabbi Moses Chaim Luzzatto should be studied thoroughly. There is no such thing (in any real tradition that I am aware of) as the Book of Trees. This sounds like a pseudo-exegesis of something that the author had no real knowledge of. FWIW, I think that HPB missed a good deal in her explanations of this subject. She attacks Eliphas Levi, who was a Christian Abbot. She does not demonstrate a familiarity with *genuine* Jewish sources, which is not surprising, as that community had been subject to severe repression during the period of HPB's incarnation. The genuine Kabbalistic tradition has recently been brought to the attention of the scholarly community through the works of Scholem and Matt. Anything else is derivative or speculative, IMHO. I repeat, there is no Book of Trees (in any Jewish Kabbalistic tradition). The study of the above *genuine* sources will be repaid handsomely. --Frank Dyer From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 4 22:20:44 1996 Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 23:20:44 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: TI discussion list Mime-Version: 1.0 In case some of you missed it, there is now a mailing list for Theosophy International. It's purpose is to discuss ways and means of promoting the three objects as expressed by Theosophy International. To subscribe, send a message with no subject header to listproc@vnet.net subscribe TI-L your name Do not put your sig at the end. If you do you will get a surplus error message. Alan Bain --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 5 05:45:37 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:45:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960805014536_377696759@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Kabbalah One little problem. Alphonse Louis Constant was not an abbot, he was a priest, which the French Abbe means. Chuck the Heretic From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 5 11:58:33 1996 Date: 05 Aug 96 07:58:33 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Message-Id: <960805115833_72724.413_FHP32-1@CompuServe.COM> Max writes: "Sy and Jim: I still did not hear anything about references to OFFICIAL documents or announcements or decisions or whatever, related to the expulsions." Max, I can assure you that the Danish national section was expelled from Adyar, as was the Canadian National Section. Also, the Boston Lodge was expelled by TSA. When representatives from Akron, Miami and St. Louis met with the people from Denmark in Wash D.C. on May 7th, the Danes supplied us with a copy of an extensive set of documents relating to their expulsion and the legal case brought by Adyar in an attempt (unsuccessful) to capture the Sections assets. Similarly, the people from Canada have supplied me with many copies of documents relating to their expulsion. In Boston, TSA also arranged a legal attack on the Boston Lodge assets. There, there was a settlement. The valuable Lodge building was sold, the Lodge (now expelled) got 2/3 of the assets and a small group of members organized by Fernando de Torrijos, N.E. District Director, as an opposition got 1/3 of the assets. This was after huge legal fees were paid to lawyers for both sides from the sale of the building proceeds, a real tragedy for the Boston people who had over the years built those assets. I also have copies of many of these documents. The Boston Lodge, now independent, bought a new building with their share of the proceeds in Arlington, Mass. where they now function. The last I heard, from Fernando in July 1995, the de Torrijos group still had their funds (about $200,000) in a bank account. I'm glad some people from Oakland will be coming to the St. Louis, Missouri conference in October. I will also be there and intend to bring along copies of many of the documents relating to all this so you can examine them. This stuff really did happen. As Ramadoss has observed, almost nothing was known about these affairs by ordinary members and it appears that both the national and international administrations have attempted to keep the matters quiet. I discovered the Boston affair by asking questions about the reasons for the purported bylaw changes at the national convention in July, 1995 (before then none of our Miami Lodge members knew anything about it). After the convention, I then put some of the information about the Boston affair on the Internet. Kim from Denmark then came forward on the Internet and began to give us the information about the Denmark affair, which I was able to subsequently confirm with the Danish national officers. It is important that we keep the light of publicity on these happenings, and this Internet group gives us an avenue to do that because it is not controlled by any national or international administration as are the various theosophical journals. I hope some of our national officers are tuned in to these Internet discussions, whether they wish to openly reply or not. It is a new time, made possible by new communications. If TSA is to continue with general support from its membership, there must, in my view, be an attempt to redress of the wrongs done to the Boston Lodge. If the 3 declared objects mean anything, I can see no valid reason for the expulsion of the Boston Lodge, in spite of side issues that were raised. I like to hope that our national officers and directors are big enough to admit the mistake in Boston, to oppose the Radha burnier letter of 1980 that appears to be the genesis of all these affairs, to undo the purported bylaw changes which attempt to turn the TS into an episcopal organization, and to reunite theosophists because we do have a common cause. There are so few of us on the world stage, we ought to be united in that cause. If our national officers want to leave as a real hallmark of their administration, the good of the TS , it is important that they be helpful in reunifying the Theosophical Society. Perhaps they will wish to attend the St. Louis conference on October 5th, which is open to all theosophists and theosophical organizations, and begin a new page dedicated to theosophical unity. To do so, the 3 declared objects must be honored and adhered to. Merely paying lip service to them is insufficient. Sy Ginsburg From uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Mon Aug 5 14:34:05 1996 Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 10:34:05 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Message-Id: <199608051435.AA10206@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Blind Spots, Fundamentalism, and the Mystical Paul: I appreciate you taking the time to write the lengthly response to my last posting to you. My initial posting of a few words regarding the T.S. losing its "uncola" nature by being overrun with coke drinkers seemed to have hit a raw nerve with you, evoking a harsh response. And then, instead of writing something to calm things down, I replied with an equally hard position, which just intensified things. You mention that I express contempt for people that do not adequately appreciate the same things as me, that I show scorn of heretical Theosophists. But I don't say that people are inferior for not finding something special in Theosophy. And I don't say that the approach offered through Theosophy is exclusive, and that anyone unable to undertake it is backwards in things spiritual. I will continue to work on new and different ways to express what I've learned and experienced. (As I'd hope that everyone else is doing as well!) Certainly I'd agree that an approach that leaves others seeing red, missing the meaning of what I'm talking about, and only hearing "I know more than you and you're lacking!", becoming ready to respond to me with "Go to Hell!" -- this is not effective communication. Speaking of blind spots is like evoking the mantra of "there is no religion higher than truth!" It's easy to find a "blind spot" in someone that sees things differently. It's another way of saying that the only possible explanation that someone else does not agree with you is that they're simply blind to certain essential truths, that they have a blind spot. But the reverse could be just as well true, where the reason they don't agree with you is that they see something that you're still blind to, and that's why their disagreement is so hard to understand. There are a number of areas where we can play word games, using semantics to somehow make our approach special, unique, and better than others. One is to call an idea an "hypothesis", if it's ours, and a "belief" if it's someone else's. Another is to call one's favorite set of ideas as a body of occult "doctrines", and someone else's as "dogmas". Apart from all the word games, it comes down to "This is what I think, and that is what you think." Apart from that, the semantics attempts to rate people in terms of other qualities like flexibility of mind, and does not address the merit of the ideas themselves. I appreciate the fact that you and many others have taken the philosophy seriously and have explored it. And that there is a general interest in the spiritual and a desire to learn about it among T.S. members. We just get into a problem when moving beyond the status quo of Theosophy as offered in the T.S. Some people believe that everything is subjective, that there is nothing that can be talked about regarding the Path. Everyone has, from this standpoint, to speak as a complete beginner, unsure of everything and as someone that echoes the words of others thought to be advanced, like HPB. How could a mere student be qualified to speak of something as being real? Wouldn't doing so be saying "mine's better than yours" and be elitism? I would say that there is something more than what we read in our books, and that it may be proper to write about it at times. Anything written, of course, stands or falls on its own merits, and not because of any claims anyone may make. The value is in the philosophy, regardless of the person it may be expressed through. (Some choice words, for instance, that I may read on theos-l, may convey as much as a key citation from the source literature.) You mention that fundamentalists are constantly harping on the spiritual inadequacy of others. That may be so, because they need to convert others in order to reaffirm their shakey beliefs, to give some external validation to beliefs that are attacked by gnawing doubts within. This is the opposite of the mystical, and of the spiritual as I'd find it in Theosophy. There is no need to convert others, because the beliefs are consistent with life -- both inner and outer -- and are in harmony with Nature. The emphasis here is the desire to *express*, not the desire to *convert*. The higher contents of consciousness seek expression in the world. The important thing that we may all agree to would be that there be ways for us to talk about the spiritual, the magical side of life, and share deep things without alienating others by appearing to judge them. This is both as individuals and as theosophical organizations. When we think we've found doorways to special things, we can talk about them humbly, in subdued voice, without the glare of neon lights and billboards. And then we can let people choose what they find of value, and think none the less of them if they pass us over, going on to other things instead. -- Eldon From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Aug 5 14:37:51 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 08:37:51 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Kabbalah In-Reply-To: <960805014536_377696759@emout13.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > One little problem. Alphonse Louis Constant was not an abbot, he was a > priest, which the French Abbe means. Actually, I think he studied at seminary, wound up becoming a deacon, but never made it all the way to the priesthood - he was unceremoniously booted out for thinking unapproved thoughts. He would have felt quite at home in the TS. -JRC From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 5 00:52:39 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 01:52:39 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Homepage Mime-Version: 1.0 My homepage is online at URL http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Mon Aug 5 15:41:05 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 08:41:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960805115833_72724.413_FHP32-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sy, Thanks for your reply. I did not challenge accuracy of your information--I just would like to see if these happenings were covered in theosophical magazines and to check the official versions. It looks like they were not. Max On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > Max writes: > "Sy and Jim: I still did not hear anything about references to OFFICIAL > documents or announcements or decisions or whatever, related to the > expulsions." > > Max, I can assure you that the Danish national section was expelled from Adyar, > as was the Canadian National Section. Also, the Boston Lodge was expelled by > TSA. > > When representatives from Akron, Miami and St. Louis met with the people from > Denmark in Wash D.C. on May 7th, the Danes supplied us with a copy of an > extensive set of documents relating to their expulsion and the legal case > brought by Adyar in an attempt (unsuccessful) to capture the Sections assets. > Similarly, the people from Canada have supplied me with many copies of documents > relating to their expulsion. In Boston, TSA also arranged a legal attack on the > Boston Lodge assets. There, there was a settlement. The valuable Lodge > building was sold, the Lodge (now expelled) got 2/3 of the assets and a small > group of members organized by Fernando de Torrijos, N.E. District Director, as > an opposition got 1/3 of the assets. This was after huge legal fees were paid > to lawyers for both sides from the sale of the building proceeds, a real tragedy > for the Boston people who had over the years built those assets. I also have > copies of many of these documents. The Boston Lodge, now independent, bought a > new building with their share of the proceeds in Arlington, Mass. where they now > function. The last I heard, from Fernando in July 1995, the de Torrijos group > still had their funds (about $200,000) in a bank account. > > I'm glad some people from Oakland will be coming to the St. Louis, Missouri > conference in October. I will also be there and intend to bring along copies of > many of the documents relating to all this so you can examine them. This stuff > really did happen. As Ramadoss has observed, almost nothing was known about > these affairs by ordinary members and it appears that both the national and > international administrations have attempted to keep the matters quiet. I > discovered the Boston affair by asking questions about the reasons for the > purported bylaw changes at the national convention in July, 1995 (before then > none of our Miami Lodge members knew anything about it). After the convention, > I then put some of the information about the Boston affair on the Internet. Kim > from Denmark then came forward on the Internet and began to give us the > information about the Denmark affair, which I was able to subsequently confirm > with the Danish national officers. > > It is important that we keep the light of publicity on these happenings, and > this Internet group gives us an avenue to do that because it is not controlled > by any national or international administration as are the various theosophical > journals. I hope some of our national officers are tuned in to these Internet > discussions, whether they wish to openly reply or not. It is a new time, made > possible by new communications. If TSA is to continue with general support from > its membership, there must, in my view, be an attempt to redress of the wrongs > done to the Boston Lodge. If the 3 declared objects mean anything, I can see no > valid reason for the expulsion of the Boston Lodge, in spite of side issues that > were raised. I like to hope that our national officers and directors are big > enough to admit the mistake in Boston, to oppose the Radha burnier letter of > 1980 that appears to be the genesis of all these affairs, to undo the purported > bylaw changes which attempt to turn the TS into an episcopal organization, and > to reunite theosophists because we do have a common cause. There are so few of > us on the world stage, we ought to be united in that cause. > > If our national officers want to leave as a real hallmark of their > administration, the good of the TS , it is important that they be helpful in > reunifying the Theosophical Society. Perhaps they will wish to attend the St. > Louis conference on October 5th, which is open to all theosophists and > theosophical organizations, and begin a new page dedicated to theosophical > unity. To do so, the 3 declared objects must be honored and adhered to. Merely > paying lip service to them is insufficient. > > Sy Ginsburg > > From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 5 15:38:16 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:38:16 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Did Jesus exist? In-Reply-To: <9608050054.AA15326@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608050054.AA15326@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >Therefore, I agree that the question of the historicity of Jesus >was "too good of an opportunity to miss," and I submit that it >indeed was not passed up. But by the fourth century, the >political tide changed and the Church saw to it that most of >those challenges were erased from historical memory. Of course >we have records of refutations written from the point of view of >the victorious Church: but concerning the records of the loosing >factions, we have only the slightest traces of evidence that they >ever existed at all. I see this discussion as relating to whether the Jesus of the New Testament was a historical person - my guess is that variant forms of the name "Joshua" which the *Greek* name "Jesus" is derived from were given to quite a few thousand kids in Galilee, Samaria and Judea around the time of the period concerned. Somewhere (a few years back, alas! I no longer have the source) some archaeologist or another discovered that the Roman name of Mary's reputed lover, and therefore biological dad *was* a genuine Roman name, where it had previusly been claimed that no such name ever belonged to a Roman citizen - it turned up on a headstone or monument to a Roman soldier, I think. As it is generally agreed that the first real evidence for a sect that could be called "Christian" comes from the putative letters of Paul (some are definitely NOT by him) which from the date(s) attributed to the earliest know copies could have been well edited in their present form, then the Pauline evidence suggests that the forerunners of the Xtian church were more interested in a) the "risen" Jesus or b) the act of spiritual "anointing" - "christening" in English. c) a+b. This is certainly in line with the alleged "gnostic" Jesus as portrayed in much of the Hag Hammadi texts. Personally I am inclined to the view that there was a 1st century rabbi of this name who taught a form of Israelite esotericism, and whose sayings were collected, then supplemented by other sayings which people would like him to have said. This happened with many of the Judaic sages (such as R. Hillel, Akiba, and others). There is, verily, a sort of "apostolic succession" for Israelite mysticism/esotericism which passes from said Hillel to Gamaliel and thus to Paul, who tells us himself that he "sat at the feet" of the former. Translate this to India (metaphorically) and we can picture the chela Paul at the feet of the guru Gamaliel :-) [Aside to Jerry - have you read "The Teaching of Addai" - ? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 5 15:48:25 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:48:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Kabbalah In-Reply-To: <960805025304_73632.105_FHV94-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960805025304_73632.105_FHV94-2@CompuServe.COM>, "Frank J. Dyer" <73632.105@compuserve.com> writes > The genuine Kabbalistic tradition has recently been brought to the >attention of the scholarly community through the works of Scholem and Matt. >Anything else is derivative or speculative, IMHO. I repeat, there is no Book of >Trees (in any Jewish Kabbalistic tradition). > > The study of the above *genuine* sources will be repaid handsomely. > It is worth trying to get hold of the bilingual edition of "Likutei Amarim-Tanya" which is a modern standard 'Hasidic work with Hebrew and English on facing pages. It has a description of the Sephiroth in an appendix, and uses a lot of Kabbalist terminology in its commentaries. (They spell themselves as Chassidim). One of their Brookline (Boston) members was greatly inpressed with my "Keys to Kabbalah" and made a point of visiting me in England. [smirk]. My own copy is Copyright 1981 by "Kehot" Publication Society, 770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11213. British Section: Lubavitch House, 109/115 Stamford Hill, London N16 5RP. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 5 16:23:25 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:23:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960805122324_449755422@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Alan, Thanks again. You would not believe the pile of junk she has managed to accumulate on my coffee table. When Gerda finds a piece of paper, it is never found again. Chuck From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Mon Aug 5 16:52:34 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 10:52:34 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Maxim Osinovsky wrote: > Sy, > > Thanks for your reply. > I did not challenge accuracy of your information--I just would like to > see if these happenings were covered in theosophical magazines and to > check the official versions. It looks like they were not. Max ... Theos-l was, I think, a rude awakening for many of us. Even some that are generally strong supporters of the established organizations - that would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt - have wound up getting almost appalled at the nature and extent of what is going on. It seems there is a substantial power play going on right now - an effort by a few to completely control both the legal and ideological future of the TS. And the way it has (IMO) been done up to now with little opposition is through the complete control of the avenues of information ... the TS publications and etc. There are many Theosophists in Lodges, and probably the majority of at-large members that do not even know the Boston Lodge, and even whole national sections, have been expelled. Headquarters is playing hard-ball politics, and doing it (at least in the short run) quite effectively - you won't see the "official" point of view in TS publications, because HQ does not even want it to be a topic of discussion. If you were a member at large receiving only national publications, to this day you would not know about the Boston massacre, not know that there was anything but the mildest discussion about the *illegal* by-laws changes made last year, etc., etc. The fact that Algeo found it necessary to defend himself in the last AT was a recognition of the fact that there is, despite their best efforts - growing awareness in the TS that something very unpleasent is happpening ... and he is trying to put a spin on it before it gets out of hand. But he came very close to telling almost outright lies - not overt, but by implying that the TS Wheaton HQ was operating from a particular position ... when a Lodge is *sued by Headquarters*, using funds from the general operating budget (that is, moneys past and present Theosophists payed ... to *forward the Theosophical movement*) and sued because of *ideological direction* - when to actually get your study group or lodge affiliation from HQ you must study specified things and (I believe) pass a test .... There is something very dark and delibrate going on behind the scenes ... and while HQ has been able to present a nice, open and pleasent face at the surface - it has also been moving step by step to achieve an almost total lock on both the power *and the financial resources* of HQ (I would invite you to try to get into office if you are not "approved" by the current leadership, or try to get recognized as study group if you want to study Alice Bailey.) The problem is, the emergence of the Internet is a massive end run around the HQ control of information - it is instantaneous, international, and uncontrollable by any person or faction .... My eyes were uncomfortably opened over the last couple of years as story after story, event after event came to light here. I'm probably like most - we don't want to have to bother with administrative stuff, want the leadership to just sort of take care of business and facilitate the actual work of Theosophy ... to attempt to actualize the Three Objects into modern civilization ... we are far more comfortable discussing the similarities and differences between Kabbalistic and Hindu creation schemes than the particulars of HQ finance and by-laws interpretations - but (IMO) part of what one accepts when one joins any organization is both the priviledges and responsibilities ... a duty to *take responsibility for the organization's shadow* (e.g., there is actually a movement beginning in mainstream Christianity to deal with the excesses of fundamentalism - mainstream Christians beginning to suddenly realize that ignoring that shadow has lead to a place where to say "I am a Christian" now carries all sorts of undertones and connotations that it didn't 10 years ago ...). At any rate ... to answer the question ... the *lack* of any "offical statement" in national publications *is*, in its own way, itself the offical statement: *They don't even want this discussed*. But the time fast approaches when this will no longer even be an option. Regards, -JRC From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Mon Aug 5 17:39:51 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:36:51 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <9EC22713B@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Discussing about Jesus' life under Pilate, arouse a doubt about the star of Bethelem as described in Mathew's gospel. Is such story possible? december 1995 pages 34-35 "If the star of Bethlehem was so spectacular, then why did so few people see it? Ancient chinese astronomers watched the heavens like hawks but there is no trace in their writings of the star above the Holy Land. Even king Herod languished in ignorance until the wise mem put him right. So what's the explanation? Perhaps the star was not a dramatic astronomical event but an obscure astrological one, recogniced by only a few of cognoscenti. American astronomer Michael Molnar from Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, has come up with a remarkable new thrist on this idea. He believes that the star of Bethlehem was completely invisible. Molnar has linked astronomical events to astrological symbolim on romans coins and come to the conclusion that far from being a dazzling beacon, the star was a double lunar occultation of Jupiter, in which the planet dissapeared twice behind the moon. (Quaterly Journal of the royal astronomical society, vol36 p 109) Molnar examined a group of coins from Antioch, the capital of Roman province of Syria.On one side of each coin was a bust of Jupiter and on the other, Aries the ram looking back at a star. Molnar syas that the star could represent two unusual events that take took place in the constelation Aries on 18 April AD 7, around the time that coind were made. The first was a close approach, or conjunction, of Jupiter and Mercury. The second was a heliacal rising of Jupiter, when the planet appeared in the dawn sky just before sunrise. Molnar believes that the coincidence of these events would have been extremely auspicious for ancient astrologers. The romans often displayed their political triumphs on their coins and Jupiter as king of the gods was often used as a symbol of dominion. So Molnar believed that the conjuction and helical rising might well mirror some expansion in the influence of Roman Syria. In fact, only the year before, in AD 6, the romans had deposed king Herod's son Archelaus and subsumed Judaea into an enlarged Syria. Molnar suggests that Romans took the conjunction and heliacal rising of Jupiter in Aries as a celestial seal of approval for the deed. And because the romans had often associated a constellation with a region on earth-for instance Syria was sometimes represented by Scorpius-Molnar suggests that Aries may have been linked to Judaea.The writings of the astrologer Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria confirm the link. In his Tetrabiblos, compiled in about AD 150 but based on material going back to 100 BC, Ptolemy includes a list of countries and the zodiacal signs believed to control them. Judaea is under the spell of Aries. "It tell us that if anything significant were to occur in Judae, the place to look for a sign would be in Aries", says Molnar. So what would the sign have been? Molnar says conjunctions were very significant to ancient astrologers, and the closer the heavenly bodies were, the better. A lunar occultation was therefore the consummate astrological event since the moon and a planet seemed to touch. Molnar's collection of Antioch coins told him that occultations were especially significant if they occurred in Aries. In the reign of Nero, for instance, the romans struck coins with a ram looking back at a crecent and a star. These commemorate a lunar occultation of Venus in Aries on 27 april AD 51.This time the design seems to represent a political prophesy: "We know from the roman historian Suetonius that astrologers had predicted that Nero would be overthrown in Rome but resurface as a king in Jerusalem", says Molnar "These coins with a star and a crecent in Aries fit that astrological prediction". Molnar deduced that what would signify an important event in Judaea would be a lunar occultation in Aries. Only one more ingredient was now needed to concoct a recipe for the star of Bethlehem: the important event in Judaea must symbolize the birth of a king. Molnar suspected that because it was often used to represent dominion Jupiter would be the likely regal symbol. And indeed he found that Jupiter starred in the ancient horoscopes of several Roman emperors. In fact it was the position of Jupiter in Augustus Caesar'horoscope that prompted astrologer Nigidius Figilus to declare to the senate: "the ruler of the world is now born". So did a lunar occultation of Jupiter in Aries occur around the time of Christ's birth? Molnar checked the period 10 to 1 BC because it covers most estimates of the year. Sure enough, on 20 March 6BC, a minute after sunset in Jerusalem, the moon occulted Jupiter in Aries. The occultation ended an hour later. The real puzzle is how anyone knew the occultation was happening. 'The event was hidden by the bright sky"says Molnar. But he is conviced that astrologers would have known. "There is strong evidence that the astrologers of the day had the necessary mathematical skills to indicate such an occultation even when it was not visible",he says. Molnar was conviced he had discovered the celestial event he was looking for. Then, to his great surprise, he found that a second occultation of Jupiter took place only a month after the first. It happened on 17 april, when the moon, having swung once round the sky, returned to Aries and repeated the occultation. It happened a little after noon, when Jupiter was in the southwest sky. Like the first it was completely invisible. Molnar believes that the first occultation, on 20 march 6BC corresponded to the birth of Christ. It was this that sent the Magi on their way as told in St Matthew's gospel. Believing that a king of Judaea had been born, they hurried to Jerusalem to find out if herod knew where to find him. Heros's advisers suggetsed Bethehem in accordance with an acient hebrew prophesy. Then not long before the second occultation, the Magi predicted the event, and were stunned when they realised that it was happening in the directon of Bethlehem-it seemed to confirm that they should search for their king in Judaea. Details of second occultation seem to tie in well with biblical passages. Astronomical data show that a few hours before the event, Jupiter rose in the dawn sky. According to Matthew's gospel, the star rose in the east confirming that it came up with the sun. When Magi left Herod, the star "went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was". There may be a literal meaning to this since everything was happening in the direction of Bethlehem. If Molnar is right, this is strong evidence that the Magi visited Herod on 17 april 6BC. Molnar predicted the event astrologers would have looked for, and then checked to see if it had happened. "Molnar has come up with an interesting an very original explanation" says Owen Gingerich of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambrige Massachussetts. (end of the text) Abrantes From theos@sure.net Mon Aug 5 21:19:07 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 14:19:07 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608052119.OAA07747@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Kaballah Frank Dyer states that "There is no such thing (in any real tradition that I am aware of) as the Book of Trees. This sounds like a pseudo-exegesis of something that the author had no real knowledge of...I repeat, there is no Book of Trees (in any Jewish Kabbalistic tradition)." It is unfortunate that so many choose to believe that a work does not exist simply because they have not personally seen or heard of a manuscript. The manuscript, the "Book of Trees", is a scroll written about the same time that the existing system of the Ari was being formalized. It is written in Hebrew, and currently resides in a museum in Europe. At that time there were many systems to explain the Kaballah, not just the currently accepted form (the ARI, named for it's author). HPB obviously had access to the manuscript, or she was able to duplicate the system by using her esoteric understanding (as confirmed on Page 200 of Secret Doctorine, Vol. 1.) As far as this being "Something the author has no real knowedge of", The author possesses a photostatic reproduction of the manuscript, and has learned much from it's study. Further, It has been presented in a book on Kaballah (albeit with no translation.) The book is unavailable to me at present however, if pressed, I will go to the effort produce the text to prove the ignorance of Mssr. Dyer! The model referred to is presented below: ----------- | 1 | (Keter-Chakhmah-Binah) Monad | / \ | (Atman) | 3 - 2 | ----------- / | \ / | \ --------- | --------- | 5 |-----| 4 | (Chesed - Gevurah) [? Spiritual Body ?] --------- | --------- (Atma-Buddhi) | \ | / | | \ | / | | --------- | | | 6 | | Tiferet Cause(al) Body | --------- | (Buddhi-Manas) | / | \ | | / | \ | --------- | --------- | 8 |-----| 7 | (Netzach - Hod) Mental/Astal Unit --------- | --------- (Kama-Manas) \ | / \ | / --------- | 9 | (Yesot - Malkhut) Sarira | | | | 10 | --------- You will note that this model presents the central point, from above, as the Causal body (into which the essence of each incarnation is eventually transferred.) From below, it is the creative hierarch that produces our existance, with Tiferet correlating to the Eloheim (Per HPB), and Yesot-Makhut coorilating to the Man of Genesis. Using The Sefer Yetzirah, the following would be a the Presented Model (with HPB's Coorilates): Sefirot Sefer Yetzirah (True form) Genesis HPB(1880) ---------------- -------------------------- -------------------- --------- Keter A-H The Tetragamaton Chakhmah Y-H Binah Y-H-V-H (read 'ELOHEIM') (Gen 1:1 only) Chesed ELOHEIM Creation (Genesis 1) EL Gevurah ELOHEIM YHVH (Genesis 2/3) ELOAH Tiferet YHVH (Genesis 4) ELOHEIM Netzach Eloheim Tzevaot Hod YHVH Tzevaot Yesod El Shaddai Malkhut Adonoy This model presents the logic HPB uses when she states (REPEATEDLY) that "the EGO is only the 'Breath of life' that Jehovah, one of the ELOHEIM or greative gods, breathed into the nostrils of Adam..." Also note the similarity of A-H (that the trained Kabalist defines as 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh') to the Term 'Ah-Hi' used in Cosmogenesis. Finally, for those not familiar with Hebrew, the term 'Asher' is translated 'THAT'. Is it possible that this is the imfamous AHYH (the Macroprosopus) that HPB referred to as the symbolic "Ancient of Days"? Wouldn't this also answer why HPB always talked about the worship of a PERSONAL god (placing YHVH at Tiferet, the same location as the Cause-al Body?) Perhaps Mssrs Dyer and Bain would care to share their views anf provide more than retorical comments to back up the belief that "HPB missed a good deal in her explanations of this subject." If the response is again something like "I do this in my 'Keys to Kabbalah' which is only available privately printed from myself" and "Have to save up for my book then", then it would appear that you approach these topics in the same manner as all of those organizations HPB condemmed in the 1880s for claiming to make masters of occultism 'for a price'. Frank contunues "For the real essence of Kabbalah, one should look to sources such as Rabbi Chaim Vital, Rabbi Yatzeck Luria (the Ari), and Rabbi Moses Cordovero. Rabbi Moses Chaim Luzzatto should be studied thoroughly." I would add works such as the Meam Loetz by Rabbi Yaakov Culi (and his successors, who finished it after his death), and the writings of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and OMIT the works of Rabbi Berg (which contain more EGO than Esoterism.) And let us not forget the origin of much if this, Genesis (In the Original Hebrew, as no other form is sutable for esoteric study.), the Bahir, and the Sefer Yetzerah, from among many others. I concur that "The study of ... *genuine* sources will be repaid handsomely.", however, egotism during this study leads to disaster in the end, as Frank's post has unfortunatly proven. Alan Bain writes: > It is worth trying to get hold of the bilingual edition of "Likutei > Amarim-Tanya" which is a modern standard 'Hasidic work with Hebrew and > English on facing pages. It has a description of the Sephiroth in an > appendix, and uses a lot of Kabbalist terminology in its commentaries. Mesorah Publications, in Brooklyn, New York, is an excellent source for such "Bilungual (Hebrew/English)" texts. The best for biblical texts is the Artscroll Tanach Series, as it contains commentaries from hundreds of Rabinical sources. Another source would be Moznaim Publishing, also in Brooklyn. This would be an excellent source for the Me'am Lo'ez. The Moznaim edition I use is Bilingual Ladino/English text with english commentary. Advance warning: These texts are expensive in the long run. Plan on spending hundreds (to thousands) to set up a complete reference set to work with. We shall see if the second object of the Society is alive and well if this theosophical forum. "Ever Dance with the Devil in the pale Moonlight?" James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. "THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH" Note: FOR SECRET DOCTORINE STUDENTS - if you use the presented model to allign the Stanzas of 'Cosmogenesis', you might find a WORLD of understanding. (I.E. '1-2-3' = Stanza 1, '6' = Stanza 4 "...LISTEN, YE SONS OF EARTH, TO YOUR INSTRUCTORS...", '9-10' = Stanza 7 "Behold the betinning of sentient formless life.") From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 5 23:19:21 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:19:21 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960805122324_449755422@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960805122324_449755422@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Thanks again. You would not believe the pile of junk she has managed to >accumulate on my coffee table. When Gerda finds a piece of paper, it is >never found again. > >Chuck Don't mention it. You should see my desk ... well, maybe not. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Note figure "one" after WWW) From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Aug 6 00:39:48 1996 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:39:48 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608060039.AA07126@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Historic Jesus Abrantes writes: >Discussing about Jesus' life under Pilate, arouse a doubt about >the star of Bethlehem as described in Matthew's gospel. Is such >story possible? > > december 1995 pages 34-35 [snip] JHE Speculations regarding the nature of the star of Bethlehem has become quite a fad as of late in this country. Every local Observatory seems to have a program on it during the Christmas holidays. There are several videos that are broadcasted on the TV stations around Christmas time too, with new ones coming out every year. I think some of these videos are quite good, and include extensive commentaries and speculations from major Biblical Scholars and Astronomers. The "expert" opinions range from "it happened just like the Bible says" to "the whole story is a fabrication." The speculations in between run from the appearance of a nova, a comet, and a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn. Each explanation seems to cover some of the Biblical evidence and miss others. The NEW SCIENTIST'S article speculating upon the event being an occultation of the moon and Jupiter in 6 B.C. is an interesting addition to the already unwieldy collection of speculations. I think Michael Molnar is correct in his opinion that the ancient astrologer would have known of this event even though it was not visible to the casual observer. But I do not agree that the astrologers would have considered it to be such an important event. It is fairly common for the moon to occult planets. It seems to happen every year. The occultation of Jupiter would be no more or less rare than the occultation of any other planet. That the occultation occurred at helical rising is more significant, and would have caught the attention of the astrologers, but it is hardly an event of great rarity. Even this article points out that the same event occurred again in A.D. 51. Events that occur fifty years apart are very impressive to ancient astrologers, but not earth shattering. Then, there is the question as to whether the astrologers might have considered this event more important than, say the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, or of a nova (recorded around that time). The answer to such a question must be partly subjective. More important about these events is that none of them, including Molnar's, fit all of the information given in the Bible. That the star is seen rising in the east fits this event okay, but according to your quote from Matthew, "the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was." That means that the star rose in the East, took a hard left to the South and settled over Bethlehem. For any astronomical object or phenomena to act in this manner is absolutely unprecedented. If it had occurred, one wonders why such a spectacular event was not recorded all over the world. Personally, I think the star event is not a literal description, of an astronomical event, but a symbolic description alluding to the changing of the age as understood by the Roman Stoics and the followers of Mithras as early as 100 B.C. Like the Jupiter occultation of 6 B.C., this astronomical event is quite real and was calculated by the astrologer, but "not seen" by the uninitiated. But unlike the event of 6 B.C. that may occur every fifty years or so, this astronomical event of 100 B.C. occurs only once every two thousand years. The event I'm speaking of is the precession of the equinoxes, and is called a "messianic cycle," because messianic leaders (i.e. saviors of humanity) are supposed to be born during these events. In the case of the event of 100 B.C., the precessional point moved from Aries to Pisces, and may have something to do with the early Christian's association of the sign of the fish to Jesus. 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 Tue Aug 6 05:40:14 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 01:40:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960806014013_593281533@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought John, That the internet has made an end run around them is turning into a massive understatement and they don't like it one little bit. I had a friendly (seriously, it was) talk with one board member at the begining of convention about alt.theosophy and he expressed the concern that it would attract our xtian enemies and they would use it to spread lies about us and to attack us. I told him that that was exactly what I wanted, to get them to come into our killing ground and get verbally slaughtered. But that is not the thing that really bothers the powers that be. Right now only a handful of TSers are on the net, but that number is going to grow and weird thing is that with their web page and attempt at moderated newsgroups is actually going to encourage it. So what we need to do is figure out a way to get the good folk who will go to the official internet organs to come over to our more free-wheeling, maniacal and truthful unofficial ones. At that point there will be a great wailing and GaNashing of teeth (and teeth will be provided for our more dentally challenged brethren) but it will ultimately result in a more open TS that is not afraid of what it's members might choose to study. Then we can the revolution. Chuck the Heretic From pmmkien@main.com Tue Aug 6 12:15:03 1996 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 07:15:03 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608061205.HAA05252@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: The Existence of Jesus As an answer to my argument that the enemies of Christians would have seized on the opportunity to attack them, had the existence and life of Jesus been a total fabrication, Jerry H-E writes: >Abrantes and I came to the agreement that the winner of a >struggle gets to write its history. In this case, the Christians >won over their critics. As a result, there is precious little >documentation concerning Christianity's forerunners and rivals >except from the early church father's point of view. (snip) >Therefore, I agree that the question of the historicity of Jesus >was "too good of an opportunity to miss," and I submit that it >indeed was not passed up. But by the fourth century, the >political tide changed and the Church saw to it that most of >those challenges were erased from historical memory. Of course >we have records of refutations written from the point of view of >the victorious Church: but concerning the records of the loosing >factions, we have only the slightest traces of evidence that they >ever existed at all. > > Yes - the winners DO writes the history books. But here we are dealing with a massive cover-up of what surely would have been a major controversy. That is much more difficult. Before the discovery at Nag Hammadi, a lot was known of the gnostics from the writings of the Church Fathers because gnosticism was a major controversy and its challenge had to be met. Is Jerry suggesting that these same people ignored a controversy on the existence of Jesus, or did they attack it first and then burn their own writings. The latter is highly implausible. I submit that the evidence indicates that that particular controversy (about the existence of Jesus, or him having lived 100 BC), never existed in the early first or second centuries. And this can be taken as indicating that there was enough evidence in those days to refute such accusations should these arise. Of course, much of what the person we call Jesus can be debated, and the canonical gospels are hardly a reliable source of information. But it's tough to explain away the entire person as HPB or GRS Meade have tried in the light of the above evidence. Paul K. | From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 6 12:18:44 1996 Date: 06 Aug 96 08:18:44 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Historic Jesus Message-Id: <960806121844_72723.2375_FHP47-1@CompuServe.COM> JHE: > That the star is seen rising in the east >fits this event okay, but according to your quote from Matthew, >"the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the >young child was." That means that the star rose in the East, >took a hard left to the South and settled over Bethlehem. For >any astronomical object or phenomena to act in this manner is >absolutely unprecedented. If it had occurred, one wonders why >such a spectacular event was not recorded all over the world. Due to my fiction research, one answer came immediately to mind - a spaceship moving under its own power. There are ufologists who have written whole books explaining various biblical phenomenom on extrarrestrial activity. While the hard evidence for this is slim to none, it does make for an interesting sidebar in these types of discussions. -Ann E. Bermingham From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 6 12:44:40 1996 Date: 06 Aug 96 08:44:40 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Message-Id: <960806124440_72723.2375_FHP61-1@CompuServe.COM> Cosimano: >That the internet has made an end run around them is turning into a massive >understatement and they don't like it one little bit. >I had a friendly (seriously, it was) talk with one board member at the >begining of convention about alt.theosophy and he expressed the concern that >it would attract our xtian enemies and they would use it to spread lies about >us and to attack us. I told him that that was exactly what I wanted, to get >them to come into our killing ground and get verbally slaughtered. Most likely the xtians are busy fighting each other in their own newsgroups, but a few may stray over dressed in armor to do battle. >But that is not the thing that really bothers the powers that be. Right now >only a handful of TSers are on the net, but that number is going to grow ... Back in January, when I was still innocent and ignorant of the ways of the Theosophical world, I expressed my opinion that those that can be reached on the Internet must possess computers. John Meade,own esteemed host in cyberspace, said that computers were available at public libraries. Monseiur Meade, I don't know where you live, but in crammed Chi-town you have to wait in line behind in the kids, teen-agers and everyone else to make a reservation to use the library 'puters. I'm sure most people would rather have one at hand and maybe someday they'll be common as televisions. Till then, you might want to consider other means of reaching people besides the net, if possible. >and weird thing is that with their web page and attempt at moderated newsgroups >is actually going to encourage it. So what we need to do is figure out a way >to get the good folk who will go to the official internet organs to come over >to our more free-wheeling, maniacal and truthful unofficial ones. Boredom and the itch to find out what's really going on will take care of that one. >. . . but it will ultimately result in a more open TS that is not afraid of what it's members might >choose to study. How about just "not afraid"? Not afraid of seeming less than loftily intellectual, not afraid of showing heart, of being associated with other groups, etc. At this point in time, any organization that attempts to tightly control its members, is probably going to implode. There's a great restlessness going on right now in business and spiritual groups, where the members want to be a part of the team, not at the bottom of the barrel. The momentum is fierce and the sheer numbers make their cause inevitable, even though it may take time and a few bloody noses. BTW, Cos, did you see Hackers? A real Aquarian film. -Ann E. Bermingham From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Tue Aug 6 15:42:38 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:42:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Book of Trees Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII James wrote: > The manuscript, the "Book of >Trees", is a scroll written about the same time that the existing system of >the Ari was being formalized. It is written in Hebrew, and currently >resides in a museum in Europe. At that time there were many systems to >explain the Kaballah, not just the currently accepted form (the ARI, named >for it's author). HPB obviously had access to the manuscript, or she was >able to duplicate the system by using her esoteric understanding (as >confirmed on Page 200 of Secret Doctorine, Vol. 1.) As far as this being >"Something the author has no real knowedge of", The author possesses a >photostatic reproduction of the manuscript, and has learned much from it's >study. Further, It has been presented in a book on Kaballah (albeit with no >translation.) The book is unavailable to me at present however, if pressed, >I will go to the effort produce the text I believe I have located a reference to "Book of Trees" in a published book: The item in question is: Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi Kabbala: Tradition of Hidden Knowledge published by Thames and Hudson, my copy dated 1979 ("Art and Imagination" series) On p.72-73 one may find an illlegible reproduction of (the entire?) Scroll of Trees, Poland, 19th c., Alfred Cohen Collection. I hope this matches James' description. Let me attach to this reference my humble opinion about the importance of Kabbala to studying the Secret Doctrine. Although my knowledge of Kabbala is limited and is strongly biased toward *German* Kabbalistic tradition as having been taught in the old Russia, I strongly feel that SD and Jewish Kabbala may agree only in general, not in particular details,--so for someone interested in application of Jewish Kabbala to SD it may not be necessary to engage in in-depth study of Jewish Kabbala. Of course, this judgement does not apply to someone who is interested in Jewish Kabbala per se--this is a SEPARATE, very interesting and exciting field. This opinion is supported by my talks to Soviet Kabbalists conversant with interpreting the Jewish Scripture on all four levels of interpretation. The most promising area of Kabbalistic research in the framework of theosophy, IMO, is following along the lines the 'neo-Kabbala' represented by J. Ralston Skinner. (BTW, does someone know if the unpublished 3rd part of his "Key to the Hebrew-Egyptian Mystery..." is available for borrowing or purchase as a photocopy or a microfim?) This has nothing to do with merits or deficiencies of Kabbala--this is not my point,-- I just want to stress that Kabbala is a separate, highly specialised area of study. Anyone studying Kabbala--except such giants as HPB and J.Ralston Skinner and possibly old Rosicrucians--tends to get lost in whirling thoughtforms created by many generations of Jewish kabbalists and loses from sight wider perspectives offered by the Ageless Wisdom. My opinion is indirectly supported by my experience of studying Mahayana and living for 3+ years at a local Tibetan Buddhist community. Connection between SD and Mahayana is allegedly much closer than between Kabbala and SD,--but what I've learned is that I should not even think about talking with those Tibetan guys about HPB and SD,--there is a wide gap, nay, an abyss. Similar to some Jewish kabbalists, they perceive SD as a parody of Mahayana as they know it. After many years of studying Buddhism I see they are absolutely correct from their own point of view. Max From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Aug 6 15:44:14 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 11:44:14 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608061544.LAA26135@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: Blind Spots, Fundamentalism, and the Mystical In-Reply-To: <199608051435.AA10206@vnet.net>; from "uscap9m9@ibmmail.com" at Aug 5, 96 10:40 am According to uscap9m9@ibmmail.com: > > Speaking of blind spots is like evoking the mantra of "there is no > religion higher than truth!" It's easy to find a "blind spot" in > someone that sees things differently. And it's easy for another to find a blind spot in our own communications. My reference to a blind spot was particularly directed at not seeing how one's words come across to others. We all have a blind spot there at times. It's another way of saying > that the only possible explanation that someone else does not > agree with you is that they're simply blind to certain essential > truths, that they have a blind spot. Oh, no, that's not what I meant, since we all have them. Just that in a particular case where we feel others consistently misconstrue what we are saying, maybe we are unconscious of some part of what we are saying and that is the stumbling block. But the reverse could be just > as well true, where the reason they don't agree with you is that > they see something that you're still blind to, and that's why > their disagreement is so hard to understand. Of course. > > There are a number of areas where we can play word games, using > semantics to somehow make our approach special, unique, and better > than others. One is to call an idea an "hypothesis", if it's ours, > and a "belief" if it's someone else's. There are different kinds of oneupmanship, and I plead guilty to some. But there's nothing special and unique about entertaining hypotheses, and nothing inherently shameful about having beliefs. There is, however, a real difference in how well Theosophists of different orientations can communicate based on how tightly they cling to their understandings; "hypothesizers" are easier to get along with than "believers" unless you happen to have the same beliefs as the latter. We have seen plenty of evidence for that on this list. Another is to call one's > favorite set of ideas as a body of occult "doctrines", and > someone else's as "dogmas". Those qualities are not inherent in the ideas but in the way they are held. Apart from all the word games, it > comes down to "This is what I think, and that is what you think." If what one thinks is more subject to expansion, revision, correction than what some other Theosophists think about Theosophy, then *how* one thinks is more liberating and enlightening. > Apart from that, the semantics attempts to rate people in terms of > other qualities like flexibility of mind, and does not address the > merit of the ideas themselves. Call that meta-theosophy. IMO it is more important than any particular theosophical teaching, as HPB said "the philosophy of rational explanation of things" rather than "specific tenets." I apologize for any implicit rating of you; I don't mean to do so, nor to rate the merit of the doctrines you espouse. What is more important than personalities and doctrinal specifics is the character of the movement as a whole and the way it preserves and transmits the doctrines. > > The important thing that we may all agree to would be that there > be ways for us to talk about the spiritual, the magical side of > life, and share deep things without alienating others by appearing > to judge them. Agreed. And we have a fair amount of unlearning to do as a movement before we get there. This is both as individuals and as theosophical > organizations. When we think we've found doorways to special > things, we can talk about them humbly, in subdued voice, without > the glare of neon lights and billboards. And then we can let > people choose what they find of value, and think none the less of > them if they pass us over, going on to other things instead. The only challenge here is to provide enough links in our thoughts and feelings, between Theosophy and "other spiritual traditions" so that people are not misled by a simple polarization between "Theosophy" and "not-Theosophy." If we postulate such an antagonism, we are likely to end up on the losing side, in terms of what choices seekers will make. From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Aug 6 16:30:51 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 11:30:51 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960806014013_593281533@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In addition to what Chuck has stated, I believe that Krishnamurti Foundation of America tried to have a moderated official maillist which fell on its face. Its reincarnation as an unmoderated and un-official maillist is flourishing. The latter list is owned by an individual in Germany. All newsgroups go through a voting process. New newsgroups have to clearly establish why it is justified, especially if there is already a newsgroup which is active. The powers be that finally approve newsgroups will look rather critically at newsgroups whose primary focus is moderating ie. censoring. So if TSA is planning a news group, then we need to keep looking for the announcement in usenet and each one of is members and non members alike should give our feedback. If any one who is reading usenet newsgroup voting proposals knows about a moderated theosophy newsgroup, please post a message so that we all can immediately respond with our feedback. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Tue Aug 6 16:37:00 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 11:37:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought In-Reply-To: <960806014013_593281533@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Following up on the subject, even if the moderated newsgroup is established, you will find those who read and/or post messages will be visiting unmoderated alt.theosopy and theos-xxxx to get the real stories and unrestricted discussions on any topic. Internet is still in its infancy. No one has any idea of how explosive its growth and far reaching it will be in broadcasting ideas. Ideas rule the world and all great changes are brought about very powerful ideas. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 6 16:51:44 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:51:44 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <0VSPqUAgg3ByEwPO@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Book of Trees In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Maxim Osinovsky writes >I believe I have located a reference to "Book of Trees" in a published book: >The item in question is: > > Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi > Kabbala: Tradition of Hidden Knowledge > published by Thames and Hudson, my copy dated 1979 > ("Art and Imagination" series) A "coffee-table book." He wrote a few others, the best of which is, IMO, "The Way of Kabbalah". He has also slept on my sofa. We Kabbalists are a close-knit bunch (when we remember where the others live). Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Aug 6 17:16:44 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:16:44 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608061716.AA25456@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Did Jesus Exist? Alan Bain wrote: >[Aside to Jerry - have you read "The Teaching of Addai" - ? JHE Eusebius' translation? Well, I find the story hard to accept, and considering the late date of the text, I would be inclined to believe that it is a fabrication. But it does give some insight and raises questions. First; the early Syrians' stress upon Jesus as a healer. I think the emphasis on this aspect has been lost in modern society. Second; though the document is certainly more of a devotional piece than real history, it raises the question of the existence of early Christian activity in Syria. HPB seems to suggest that a lot was indeed going on there in the first century and that it was closer to the teachings of the historical Jesus. But where are the texts? Certainly the church never preserved them, and James Hastings shows only later date material. More likely the documents will be among material that have been labeled "Jewish Gnosticism." Any ideas? 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 Aug 6 16:43:08 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:43:08 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Kaballah In-Reply-To: <199608052119.OAA07747@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608052119.OAA07747@sure.net>, James S Yungkans writes >The >Moznaim edition I use is Bilingual Ladino/English text with english >commentary. Advance warning: These texts are expensive in the long run. >Plan on spending hundreds (to thousands) to set up a complete reference set >to work with. But you don't need to pay for the work of another F.T.S.? Good grief. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 6 16:44:35 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:44:35 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Historic Jesus In-Reply-To: <9608060039.AA07126@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608060039.AA07126@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >In the case of the >event of 100 B.C., the precessional point moved from Aries to >Pisces, and may have something to do with the early Christian's >association of the sign of the fish to Jesus. I have been fond of this notion for years. Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 6 16:40:33 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:40:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Kaballah In-Reply-To: <199608052119.OAA07747@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608052119.OAA07747@sure.net>, James S Yungkans writes >Perhaps Mssrs Dyer and Bain would care to share their views anf provide more >than retorical comments to back up the belief that "HPB missed a good deal >in her explanations of this subject." I for one did not make any such claim. In fact, SFAIK from past reading, she was extremely well-informed on Kabalist matters, and had some equally well-informed advisors. > If the response is again something >like "I do this in my 'Keys to Kabbalah' which is only available privately >printed from myself" and "Have to save up for my book then", then it would >appear that you approach these topics in the same manner as all of those >organizations HPB condemmed in the 1880s for claiming to make masters of >occultism 'for a price'. Wrong. But I don't work for nothing, and if you (or anyone else) *really* wants to understand where I am coming from, then my work is as well worth paying for as anyone else's. Also, it is not practical to upload the many diagrams, Tarot illustrations, words in Hebrew text, etc. I do not claim to make masters of occultism - and you are being offensive again. Please don't send for my book, and if you intend to continue making offensive remarks, please advise, and I will put you on my "ignore" list. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Aug 6 23:14:06 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:14:06 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960806191406_173259525@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Historic Jesus Ann, With regard to the star, there is an even simpler explanation. It never happened, any more than the idea of a virgin giving birth before artificial insemination was invented. Classical writers liked to invent important things that supposedly occured when someone important was born, like an eagle defecating on the head of the statue of Vulcan when an emperor was born. The Star, the Wise Men, the whole Virgin nonsense, all fall into that. It's fun to listen to astronomers talk about planetary conjuctions around that time, but even a supe-nova would not shine directly over a building, or cave, like a searchlight pointing directly down on it. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Aug 6 23:14:05 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:14:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960806191404_173259763@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Ann, Consider this: for the first time, more phone time is used to send data bits than to send voice. The reason for all the new area codes is not only the cellular phones, but also the number of modems in use. How many homes (besides my folks) had a televsion in 1948? In 1950? In 1955? These things have a way of mushrooming. One of the fun things about newsgroups is the collection of weird people who post on them. Don't worry, the xtians are coming. Along with chain letters, adds for credit cleaning and the occasional gif of someone doing something embarrassing with a sheep. That's what makes the net fun. No, I didn't see Hackers, but then I'm not an Aquarian. I hate water. Chuck the Heretic From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Tue Aug 6 23:29:44 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:29:44 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608062329.AA04750@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Historic Jesus JHE: >> That the star is seen rising in the east >>fits this event okay, but according to your quote from Matthew, >>"the star went before them, till it came and stood over where >>the young child was." That means that the star rose in the >>East, took a hard left to the South and settled over Bethlehem. >>For any astronomical object or phenomena to act in this manner >>is absolutely unprecedented. If it had occurred, one wonders >>why such a spectacular event was not recorded all over the >>world. Ann Bermingham writes: >Due to my fiction research, one answer came immediately to mind >- a spaceship moving under its own power. > >There are ufologists who have written whole books explaining >various biblical phenomenom on extrarrestrial activity. While >the hard evidence for this is slim to none, it does make for an >interesting sidebar in these types of discussions. > >-Ann E. Bermingham JHE This is the best explanation I have ever heard! Now let's see...the UFO would have moved to a stationary orbit on the eastern horizon while the Magi took a hike towards Jerusalem to investigate it. After they reached Jerusalem and consulted Herod, the UFO moved to a low stationary orbit directly over Bethlehem. It all works! Now all we have to do is figure out what the aliens had in mind. Maybe it was a honeymoon and the extra-terrestrial couple were enjoying the Jerusalem city lights, then later found Bethlehem to be a quiet romantic spot. Well, the scenario is not exactly supportable by hard evidence as you say, but at least it can be made to fit the account better than any astronomical phenomena. 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 Tue Aug 6 23:31:10 1996 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:31:10 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608062331.AA02825@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: The Existence of Jesus Paul K. writes: >Yes - the winners DO writes the history books. But here we are >dealing with a massive cover-up of what surely would have been a >major controversy. That is much more difficult. Before the >discovery at Nag Hammadi, a lot was known of the gnostics from >the writings of the Church Fathers because gnosticism was a >major controversy and its challenge had to be met. Is Jerry >suggesting that these same people ignored a controversy on the >existence of Jesus, or did they attack it first and then burn >their own writings. The latter is highly implausible. JHE Apparently you are putting forth the argument concerning the first century B.C. Jesus should have been taken up by the non Jewish religions, and there is no evidence that it was. I agree; we do not have evidence of such first century arguments. Actually, there is a dearth of first century pagan writings on the subject of Jesus one way or the other. Most commentators have concluded that this is because outside of the traditions forming among the church writers from Paul onward, no one had heard of him. A further problem is that even among the writings of Paul that are generally agreed to be authentic, Jesus is not treated as a person in any particular historical setting. i.e., there is no mention of Pilate etc. This seems to be also true of Gnostic writings in general. When they speak of Jesus, they have little interest in an historical person. Unlike the Roman Church, vicarious atonement was not a Gnostic doctrine, therefore Jesus' historicity would not be an issue. i.e., their salvation did not depend upon an historical Jesus that was crucified. I submit that this accounts for the Gnostic's lack of interest in debating Jesus' birth date. Therefore, since there was no reason for a massive controversy among the Gnostics, there would have been no reason for a "massive cover-up". However, my original point was more general--that we have little documentation of ANY arguments against the church except those answered by the church fathers. Whether the Toldoth story concerning the dating of Jesus was ignored or used by the Gnostics, I don't know, but I rather doubt it, because as I stated above, this issue of historicity would not have been meaningful to them. As for the Gnostic texts known before and after the Nag Hammadi find, as far as I have seen of them, they are philosophical works and religious scripture--not debates with early church fathers. Are you suggesting that preserved among the Gnostic texts you mention are debates with early church fathers written by Gnostics? Where are they? I must have missed them. Paul K. >I submit that the evidence indicates that that particular >controversy (about the existence of Jesus, or him having lived >100 BC), never existed in the early first or second centuries. >And this can be taken as indicating that there was enough >evidence in those days to refute such accusations should these >arise. Of course, much of what the person we call Jesus can be >debated, and the canonical gospels are hardly a reliable source >of information. But it's tough to explain away the entire person >as HPB or GRS Meade have tried in the light of the above >evidence. > >Paul K. You seem to be making two statements here: 1. that a controversy concerning the Toldoth Jesus did not exist in the first or second centuries, and this indicates that if it had been, evidence must have existed then to completely refute such a person, and; 2. that you find it difficult to understand why HPB and Mead tried to support the Toldoth Jesus in light of the argument you present above. Regarding your first statement, I agree that there is no evidence of such a debate among the Gnostic, but as I indicated above, I see no reason why such a debate would have arisen between the Gnostics and the early church fathers in the first place. Therefore, I cannot go along with your secondary conclusion that some evidence proving the historicity of the Biblical Jesus existed then that would have precluded any debate. However, such a debate between the Jews and the Christian sects in the early first century would have made sense, and must have occurred. But such debates we not preserved by the Jews nor the Christians (who have no documentation of this nature whatsoever for this period). Surely if the Jews had such records, the Christians would have destroyed them early on--as we know that the destruction of Jewish documents was a common Christian practice for centuries. Even the earliest Toldoth story fragments only dates to the 13th century, though Tertullian refers to the main elements of it, thus showing that this story must date at least to the second century. Regarding your second statement; it seems that HPB and Mead, unlike the Christian theologians of the time, felt that the Jews' and the Pagan's accounts of themselves during that period deserved serious consideration. After all, the Biblical accounts appear to have been written by Greeks, or at least by Hellenized Jews during the mid first through the third century, and the conflicting Jewish accounts tended to be systematically ignored. HPB and Mead were going with the higher biblical criticism movement that was developing at the time. This movement regarded the Bible as a work that developed within an historical milieu, rather than as the word of God. My own comparisons of HPB's and Mead's arguments to those of modern Biblical critics indicates to me that HPB's and Mead's arguments are still quite relevant and much of it is still discussed. But perhaps you have also studied this material and have come to other conclusions. I would be interested in hearing them. JHE ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 7 00:24:50 1996 Date: 06 Aug 96 20:24:50 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Message-Id: <960807002450_72723.2375_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >. . . How many homes (besides my folks) had a televsion in 1948? In 1950? In 1955? >These things have a way of mushrooming. I have no problem with that. Bring on those 'puters, the more the merrier. I'm just skeptical of predictions. Even my own. >One of the fun things about newsgroups is the collection of weird people who >post on them. Don't worry, the xtians are coming. Along with chain letters, >adds for credit cleaning and the occasional gif of someone doing something >embarrassing with a sheep. I'm sure the whole baryard's already been done. I'd regal you with pics I've seen on the web, but I don't want to get into that kind of thing on this list. >No, I didn't see Hackers, but then I'm not an Aquarian. I hate water. Aquarius is an air sign, so you have to watch which way the wind the blowing. One of those prophetic eagles might be dropping it's doodoo on you. -Ann E. Bermingham From wichm@xs4all.nl Wed Aug 7 11:29:32 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:29:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608071129.NAA13442@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Answering Greg and Martin Greg Hoskins comments on 8/2/96 on my earlier contribution: >Suspension of (correct) belief does not strike me as wisdom. Which is not >to say that healthy skepticism isn't good. For a little entertainment and to >liven up your spiritual life a bit, try suspending your (now) disbelief and give some >youthful consideration to the philosophy of theosophy, approaching >with new eyes and a new understanding based on your years of experience. I >find the philosophy only taking on more and deeper meanings. ... May I congratulate Greg Hoskins for his wisdom in holding on to the (correct) belief ? Thank you, Greg, for your concern that my spiritual life needs livening up. I shall keep in mind that suspending disbelief is one way of providing entertainment. However, as I understand it right, my disbelief is shared by quite a number of contributors to this disgest. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that "belief" implies an emotional attachment to a number of concepts. It holds the believer spell-bound and prevents him from moving forward. I was evicted in 1956 from the Pasadena (James A.Long) Theosophical Society for posting a manifest to the Delegates of the National Sections. It is 8 pages long and heralds our presentday discussions. It beseeches the leadership to return to the original aims of the Theosophical Society and subject HPB's contributions to a further scrutiny. It was never answered and all our Theosophical "friends" gave us a cold shoulder. It made me see what all these high sounding "truths" were worth really. Many years later it made me conceive my homepage: "On the psychology of spiritual movements" (http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html), although that is not aimed at the TS. In the forty years that have passed I have come into contact with many knowledgeable and spiritual people from different cultures during my stay in the Far East and Europe which has broadened my outlook. Moreover I have kept abreast of developments in many areas in those four decades. If all that is is considered a step backwards, because I should have kept to former outworn ideals, I bow my head. KARMA. What I wrote 12th July did not differ much from my latest contribution. Yet, herewith my original piece: "I feel that we are too much tied up in our thinking to a supposedly universal law of justice. Usually it is applied to human beings, whereas one wonders about justice towards animals whose life, even in natural surroundings is one of suffering (and delight) and there is faint hope that they will be compensated, unless it is in the hereafter. To me Karma implies that man's actions and thought ties him to a quality of mental and spiritual environment, to a mechanism of mind. Each action affirms that status quo or may push him over a threshold towards another state he cannot free himself from. The bad Karma is the suffering to become released from that plane, once one feels its prison-like structure. It means creating a new mental/spiritual condition laboriously, always in danger of falling, or being held back. It requires patience, intent, perseverance AND can hardly be undertaken unless there is some inner stimulation. In non-worldly conditions it is quality of mind that counts, that makes oneself staying atuned to spheres of equal intensity. Karma is the way of suffering to reach it. Good Karma is freewheeling on what one has reached. But the state of Grace is always a balance on the proverbial razor's edge." Paul commented that I should see "law' as G.de P. did. However, we are concerned with what the originator of the Theosophical system HPB wrote:"We believe firmly in what we call the "law of retribution', and in the absolute justice and wisdom guiding this Law, or Karma" (Key to Theosophy p.110) If Theosophists wish to adhere to the original enquiring spirit of before they should be prepared to question and even throw overboard concepts that have become dogma's like Karma and reincarnation. They should also direct far more their attention to Spiritism, because in my opinion, it is far more tied up with Theosophy and its communicators "The Masters" than they are prepared to accept. They should not embrace it, though, but seek for clues for instance in comparing teachings of the Mahatma's with similar communications from other sources of channeling and ask themselves what is the true nature of this phenomenon and how to access it (see my page The presence phenomenon: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/presence.html) An enquiring mind should be prepared to lay all is pet-theories on the block, including the concepts of soul, monad, atman, budhi, manas etc. All of this is pure speculation, and leads one away from the real contact with the spiritual. Philosophizing with the intellect on matters spiritual may become an escape. I am quite sure that if we see in the end backwards we shall perceive that we missed the point completely. Finally, I owe a lot to the teachings I question now and I have a high regard of Theosophists. MICHAEL ROGGE Incidentally, what is this linga sarina and shula sarina? Is it the same as linga and sthula sarira? I forgot whether Paul or Chuck wrote this, but I agree wholeheartedly: 5. Theosophy: A Religion or a Philosophy The claim that Theosophy is not a religion creates two problems. First, it "blurs the distinction between knowledge and faith. Theosophy attempts to appear as reason, but its central claims are not fact but belief. The existence of the Masters, [ahem] karma, reincarnation, human brotherhood-- all are religious conceptions that elicit faith but are not subject to proof or disproof. By avoiding calling itself a religion, Theosophy does not avoid basic its organization on religious beliefs." From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Wed Aug 7 08:52:07 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:49:07 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <17136B3B2F@serv.peb.ufrj.br> We can summarize the question until now, so that others people can participate also: HPB wrote that historical Jesus lived 1 B.C, so one century before that Church states. She refers to a ancient text Sepher Toldoth that was cited for the first time only in century XIII. I my last reference I cited Marcion, that recognices Luke`s gospel, and so also believe that the reference cited in Toldoth (if he knowed about it...) was wrong. Jerry Ekins contested: >I have already shown the flaws in your above argument: Marcion, >according to HPB did not recognize the Gospel of Luke, and >considers the accusations of Tertullian and Epiphanius against >Marcion to be false. In BOOK III, chapter IV, first pages HPB wrote: [Finally, we can add that the modern biblical critical, that unfortunatelly become active and serious only at the endings of last century, already admits that the ONLY GOSPEL THAT MARCION WAS ACQUAINTED WITH - THE GOSPEL OF LUKE - is more superior and reliable than the today synoptics. We read at Supernatural Religion, the following phrase, that will startle christians: we indebts so, to Marcion even the correct version of prayer Our Father]. Probably Supernatural Religion is referring to Lc11:2, more correct than Mt6:9 (I dont agree with this point, but I prefer to discuss this point latter...). So the author of Supernatural religion ALSO believe that Marcion recogniced Gospel of Luke, and so believe that Jesus live under Pilate, and so rejects the argument that Jesus lived one century before... Remember that HPB at book III, chapter III (start 116, end 145) page 143 says that Marcion refused ALL gospels, what shows a clear contradiction... I also cited the opinion of Dr Lardner, that also believe that Marcion accepted only gospel of Luke. It would be interesting to know what others cited by Blavastski think, such as King (The gnostics and their remains), and those cited by Cassels in Supernatural religion, such as Bunsen, Tischendorf, Westcott, Credner and Schleiermacher. Adolf von Harnack also discussed the ideas of Marcion, and so influenced the liberal protestant doctrine (Harnack, and Blackmann, Edwin Cyril Enc. Brittanica Vol 7,p555 So Luke is a Paul`s disciple. Observe that Luke comes from Syria, where HPB refers to "Syrian heresies" where the "Original Christianity is to be found..."(137). Surely Luke is an ortodox, so he doen`t express the "Syrian heresies". Finally I would like to cited Iraenaeus that lived under 180, another ancient reference about Marcion: http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers file ECF01.TXT IRENAEUS,IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES,BOOK I CHAP. XXVII. Marcion of Pontus...he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord. Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Wed Aug 7 09:09:08 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:06:08 -0300 From: ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <175BE2182C@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Referring to star of Bethlehem Ann Bermingham wrote: >Due to my fiction research, one answer came immediately to mind - a >spaceship moving under its own power. But, why didn`t other people follow this spaceship? In accordance with Matthew only the Magi follow the star. The theory given by Molnar, explain this part saying that this astronomical phenomena was perceived only by skillful persons, in this case the Magi, that probably were also astrologers. My original aim to bring this question, is to show that the wholly story wrote in Matthew about star of Bethlehem is not so absurd as someone could deduce from an earlier comment by Jerry: >In truth, the whole birth story of Jesus in Bethlehem, the star, the census >and the Magi are presently very much in doubt among the more critical >eyes of the modern biblical scholars. These stories are found to >be contradictory and inconsistent and are suspected of being >fabricated in order to fulfill OT prophecy. Surely this passage have also a meaning not so literal, the coming of a messianic age. Abrantes From uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Wed Aug 7 14:31:23 1996 Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 10:31:23 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Message-Id: <199608071530.AA03579@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: T.W. Back Issues The back issues of THEOSOPHY WORLD, and of the associated discussion are available online. (Note that this is a completely independent theosophical project from the theos-l discussion lists maintained by John Mead.) To obtain a list of available files, send a message consisting of "index" to: theos-talk-request@theosophy.com Back issues of the discussion are in files of the format theos-talk.YYMM where "YY" is the year and "MM" is the month, like file "theos-talk.9606" for June 1996. Back issues of the magazine are in files of the format: theos-world.YYMM where "YY" and "MM" are again the year and month. The August issue just came out a few days ago. To receive a back issue, send a message to "theos-talk-request" consisting of "get" followed by the name of the desired file, like: get theos-world.9606 get theos-world.9607 get theos-world.9608 end to get all three back issues. Any file in the archives may be obtained this way. ---- Contents of the first three issues are: June, 1996 > "Looking to the Future" by John Paul Rolston > "Theosophy in Tibet: The Teachings of the Jonangpa School" > by David Reigle > "The Masters Revealed" by Dara Eklund > "Ergates: The Energetic Worker" by Rich Taylor > "Embarking on a New Attempt" by Rodolfo Don > "The Paracelsian Order" by John H. Drais > "Theosophy in the Computer Age" by Jerry Hejka-Ekins > "What Are the Life-Atoms?" by Bee Brown > "Teaching the Soul Direct" from a conversation between Charles > Johnson and Madame Blavatsky > "Rights, Duties, Privileges" by Henry T. Edge July, 1996 > "Narada: A Study in The Secret Doctrine" by G. de Purucker > "Technical Terms in Stanza I" by David Reigle > "Theosophy: A Living Truth" by Rodolfo Don > "Current Superstitions" by Dara Eklund > "Psychic and Spiritual Path" by G. de Purucker > "The Archetypla Virtue" by B. P. Wadia > "Transition of Kingdoms on Globe D" by Eldon Tucker > "HPB In the News Again!" (Anonymous) > "States of Matter" by Eldon Tucker > "HPB In Tibet" (Anonymous) > "Models of Karma" by Eldon Tucker > "Alexandria West: Open to the Public" (Anonymous) > "Theosophical Encyclopeadia in Preparation" by Philip Harris August, 1996 > "Blavatsky Net Goes Online" by Scribe > "Spiritual Evolution" by Raghavan Iyer > "Original Edition of 'The Voice of the Silence'" by John H. Drais > "Appealing to the Higher Nature" by Henry T. Edge > "Psychic Powers" by Andrew Rooke > "What if I Met a Master" by Eldon Tucker > "Once Again Blavatsky Words Are Proven True" by Radda Bai > "Armageddon" by Mrs. Harry Benjamin > "PI In Base 12 Notation" > "Each Member a Center" by William Quan Judge > "When Our Memory Fails Us" by Eldon Tucker > "Theosophical Glossary and the Psychic" by Mrs. Harry Benjamin > "Cycles and the Earth's Core" by Eldon Tucker > "Monads, Principles, and Sutratmans" by G. de Purucker THEOSOPHY WORLD is an internet magazine dedicated to the theosophical philosophy and its practical application in the modern world. To submit papers or news items, subscribe, or unsubscribe, write to theos-world@theosophy.com. (The editoral slant of the magazine is towards exploring the theosophical philosophy, with an attempt to keep materials "on topic" and civil in nature. The associated discussion list is not solely limited to items appearing in the magazine; it is still experimental in nature and is subject to change.) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 00:59:51 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 01:59:51 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Blether In-Reply-To: <9608062329.AA04750@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608062329.AA04750@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >Now let's >see...the UFO would have moved to a stationary orbit on the >eastern horizon while the Magi took a hike towards Jerusalem to >investigate it. After they reached Jerusalem and consulted >Herod, the UFO moved to a low stationary orbit directly over >Bethlehem. It all works! Now all we have to do is figure out >what the aliens had in mind. They were delivering helmets to Chuck (who is, as we all know, VERY old) BTW - so am I. Go visit my homepage . . . Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed Aug 7 21:54:08 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:54:08 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608072154.AA17305@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: historic Jesus Abrantes writes: >We can summarize the question until now, so that others people >can participate also: HPB wrote that historical Jesus lived 1 >B.C, so one century before that Church states. She refers to a >ancient text Sepher Toldoth that was cited for the first time >only in century XIII. I my last reference I cited Marcion, that >recognices Luke`s gospel, and so also believe that the reference >cited in Toldoth (if he knowed about it...) was wrong. > >Jerry Ekins contested: >>I have already shown the flaws in your above argument: Marcion, >>according to HPB did not recognize the Gospel of Luke, and >>considers the accusations of Tertullian and Epiphanius against >>Marcion to be false. > [Abrantes quoting his translation of ISIS] >In BOOK III, chapter IV, first pages HPB wrote: [Finally, we can >add that the modern biblical critical, that unfortunatelly >become active and serious only at the endings of last century, >already admits that the ONLY GOSPEL THAT MARCION WAS ACQUAINTED >WITH - THE GOSPEL OF LUKE - is more superior and reliable than >the today synoptics. We read at Supernatural Religion, the >following phrase, that will startle christians: we indebts so, >to Marcion even the correct version of prayer Our Father]. JHE Your translation of the above passage is essentially correct, but a bit misleading. Below is the same passage in the original English: Finally we may add that modern biblical criticism, which unfortunately became really active and serious only toward the end of the last century, now generally admits that Marcion's text of the only gospel he knew anything about-- that of Luke, is far superior and by far more correct than that of our present synoptics. We find in Supernatural Religion the following (for every Christian) startling sentence: "We are, therefore, indebted to Marcion for the correct version even of `the Lord's prayer." (ISIS II: 168) Abrantes: >Probably Supernatural Religion is referring to Lc11:2, more >correct than Mt6:9 (I dont agree with this point, but I prefer >to discuss this point latter...). So the author of Supernatural >religion ALSO believe that Marcion recogniced Gospel of Luke, >and so believe that Jesus live under Pilate, and so rejects the >argument that Jesus lived one century before... Remember that >HPB at book III, chapter III (start 116, end 145) page 143 >says that Marcion refused ALL gospels, what shows a clear >contradiction... JHE The original English of this passage (in context) reads: Marcion, who recognized no other Gospels then a few Epistles of Paul, who rejected totally the anthropomorphism of the Old Testament, and drew a distinct line of demarcation between the old Judaism and Christianity, view Jesus neither as a king, Messiah of the Jews, nor the son of David, who was in any way connected with the law or prophets, "but a divine being sent to reveal to man a spiritual religion, wholly new, and a God of goodness and grace hitherto unknown." (ISIS II: 162). I think the contradiction is only apparent, and seems to be real than it is when the statements are taken out of context. The first passage (from pg. 162) is (to the way I read it) shows that Marcion did not accept the historical Jesus of the Christians. Therefore, he did not accept their gospels. The second passage refers to "Marcion's text" of the Gospel of Luke. You have already made the point that Marcion's text is substantially different from the one used by the Church. Therefore it is a different text. So HPB implying that Marcion accepts his own text of Luke, but not the Church's. Abrantes: >I also cited the opinion of Dr Lardner, that also believe that >Marcion accepted only gospel of Luke. JHE Yes, and you also showed that Dr. Lardner detailed the differences between Marcion's Luke and the Church's Luke. Therefore Dr. Lardner is also saying that Marcion accepted only his copy of Luke, not the Church's. But even if there were no differences between the two books, HPB makes it very clear that Marcion did not accept the Church's account of Jesus, regardless of what is in either version. Please note from the quote below from the same page, where she is drawing from Tertullian's own arguments: Marcion maintained with the other Gnostics the fallaciousness of the idea of an incarnate God, and therefore denied the corporal reality of the living body of Christ. His entity was a mere illusion; it was not made of human flesh and blood, neither was it born of a human mother, for his divine nature could not be polluted with any contact with sinful flesh (Tertullian: "Adv. Marci," iii. 8ff.). He accepted Paul as the only apostle preaching the pure gospel of truth, and accused the other disciples of "depraving the pure form of the gospel doctrines delivered to them by Jesus, mixing up matters of the Law with the words of the Savior." (Sup. Rel., vol. ii, p. 107; Adv. Marci," iii. 2; cf. iii. 12, 12.). (ISIS II: 168). Abrantes: >You contested the correctness of Tertullian (V Books against >Marcion) the carthaginian theologian (160-230) and Epiphanius >(Adv. Haeresis) Bishop of Cyprus (357-403). JHE I believe you misunderstood me here. You had pointed out that HPB cited Tertullian and Epiphanius of accusing Marcion of adulterating Luke, and concluded that "Marcion recogniced a Luke edition of gospel..." In reply, I pointed out that HPB cited the author of SUPERNATURAL RELIGION who argued that Marcion was accused "falsely." I assume that since HPB cited this, she also believes it to be so. I have not read Adv. Marcion, nor do I have the time to plow through such an extensive work at this time, so I have no opinion of my own, nor did I express one. But I did question your conclusion that the above proves that Marcion recognized the Gospel of Luke, if you mean by this the Gospel used by the Church. Even if Marcion's gospel of Luke is an adulterated version (as argued by Tertullian) of the one used by the Church, the fact remains that Marcion's understanding of the historicity of Jesus is vastly different from that held by the Church. Abrantes: >Tertullian and Epiphanius spends many chapters to explain verse >by verse the differences between the Marcion`edition of gospel >of Luke. If all these chapters are based in a misconception, why >did nobody contest it ? JHE As I stated above, I did not suggest that they were based upon a misconception. Perhaps they are--perhaps they are not. But I do not understand how the fact that the Church's version of Luke is different from Marcion's helps your argument that the historical Jesus did not live in 100 B.C. Abrantes: >I already cited a passage from Eusebius at Ecclesiastic History >BOOK V, CHAP VIII, that reproduces another passage from >Iraenaeus. There is also an anti-marcionite prologue to the >gospel of Luke, that dates 180 and was written at church of Rome >where we can find: for profession. He was disciple of the apostles, and later de >accompanied Paul until his martyrdom. Having neither wife nor >child, he served the Lord without distraction> Enc. Brittanica >Vol 7,p555 So Luke is a Paul`s disciple. Observe that >Luke comes from Syria, where HPB refers to "Syrian heresies" >where the "Original Christianity is to be found..."(137). Surely >Luke is an ortodox, so he doen`t express the "Syrian heresies". JHE I'm having a lot a problems with your logic and the conclusions you are deriving from the above string of information. How does your conclusion that Luke "is an orthodox" address HPB's argument that the historical Jesus lived in 100 B.C.? Are you implying that Luke had some special knowledge of Jesus, or that he belonged to a Syrian group that had special knowledge of Jesus? Further, are you implying that the Gospel of Luke was written by the apostle Luke, and/or represents the apostle Luke's ideas? I hope you don't hold this belief. This idea was long ago dropped by the theologians and only the most fundamentalist of Christians still hold to such a belief. If you believe a-priori that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the Apostles of those names, then you will find little profit in reading ISIS UNVEILED, and this whole discussion is a waste of time. Further, I am beginning to wonder where you are going with this discussion concerning the Gnostics. As I pointed out in past postings, HPB's statement concerning the 100 B.C. date of the historical Jesus comes from Jewish tradition--not Gnostic. I have already pointed out on several occasions that the Gnostics were for the most part not concerned with a historical Jesus. So it seems strange to me that you want to argue against a 100 B.C. historical Jesus by using Gnostic texts. What is your justification for this line of argument? I think we have already exhausted the Toldoth evidence--unless you want to do an analysis of the medieval versions that we have. So where do you want to go from here? In my last posting to you, I suggested that our inquiry might be more fruitful if we were to look at the teachings of the Ophite sect and investigate the Syrian heresies. According to my reading of HPB, she is suggesting that elements of the primitive Church and ties to the historical Jesus may be found here. Best Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 15:45:31 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:45:31 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Doodoo and you would be dundun by In-Reply-To: <960807002450_72723.2375_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960807002450_72723.2375_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM>, "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes >Aquarius is an air sign, so you have to watch which way the wind the blowing. >One of those prophetic eagles might be dropping it's doodoo on you. > >-Ann E. Bermingham Oh shit! not more doodoo! Alan :-) (with acknowledgements to Al Bundy) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 16:33:52 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:33:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Answering Greg and Martin In-Reply-To: <199608071129.NAA13442@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608071129.NAA13442@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>, wichm@xs4all.nl writes >If Theosophists wish to adhere to the original enquiring spirit of before >they should be prepared to question and even throw overboard concepts that >have become dogma's like Karma and reincarnation. They should also direct >far more their attention to Spiritism, because in my opinion, it is far more >tied up with Theosophy and its communicators "The Masters" than they are >prepared to accept. They should not embrace it, though, but seek for clues >for instance in comparing teachings of the Mahatma's with similar >communications from other sources of channeling and ask themselves what is >the true nature of this phenomenon and how to access it (see my page The >presence phenomenon: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/presence.html) I agree wholeheartedly, and am especially pleased to see your emphasis on the part that Spiritism, or Spiritualism had to play in the formative period of the T.S.. I shall also visit your homepage ... you seem like a potential recruit for TI .... [retires hastily behind barricade] Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 16:00:22 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:00:22 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <9TPLNLAW2LCyEwWY@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: The Existence of Jesus In-Reply-To: <9608062331.AA02825@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608062331.AA02825@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >However, such >a debate between the Jews and the Christian sects in the early >first century would have made sense, and must have occurred. But >such debates we not preserved by the Jews nor the Christians (who >have no documentation of this nature whatsoever for this period). A simple opinion (my own, but shared by others no doubt) is that such debates could not have occurred for the reason that in the early first century all "Christians" were also kinds of "Jews." The earliest Christian Church of all was at Jerusalem, probably surving the destruction of the Temple, but maybe not, until the Bar Kochba rebellion of 135, when the Romans threw them all out. This was headed by James (Jacob) "The Brother of the Lord" and Paul had to get their approval for his own work - which took place in the early first century. Some of the members of this Mother Church were also Pharisees, according to the N.T. itself. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 8 00:35:21 1996 Date: 07 Aug 96 20:35:21 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Doodoo Message-Id: <960808003520_72723.2375_FHP65-1@CompuServe.COM> Ann: >>Aquarius is an air sign, so you have to watch which way the wind the blowing. >>One of those prophetic eagles might be dropping it's doodoo on you. > Alan: >Oh shit! not more doodoo! >Alan :-) (with acknowledgements to Al Bundy) OH NO! You mean the Bundy's invaded the UK? We get Hyacinth Bucket and you get the Bundys - what an international trade deal! -AE Bermingham From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 23:05:05 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:05:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <2SxXXMAhESCyEwG8@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Did Jesus Exist? In-Reply-To: <9608061716.AA25456@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608061716.AA25456@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes > >Alan Bain wrote: >>[Aside to Jerry - have you read "The Teaching of Addai" - ? > > >JHE >Eusebius' translation? Well, I find the story hard to accept, >and considering the late date of the text, I would be inclined to >believe that it is a fabrication. I was thinking of a more recent translation by (I think) George Howard which was a Scholars Press dissertation series publication, and a new translation from the Aramaic text, but I went straight to the place on the shelf where it wasn't, as we often do :-) My own view is that it is a fabrication built upon a genuine oral (and very much shorter) tradition belonging the the church in Edessa. > But it does give some insight >and raises questions. First; the early Syrians' stress upon >Jesus as a healer. I think the emphasis on this aspect has been >lost in modern society. Second; though the document is certainly >more of a devotional piece than real history, it raises the >question of the existence of early Christian activity in Syria. >HPB seems to suggest that a lot was indeed going on there in the >first century and that it was closer to the teachings of the >historical Jesus. But where are the texts? Certainly the church >never preserved them, and James Hastings shows only later date >material. More likely the documents will be among material that >have been labeled "Jewish Gnosticism." Any ideas? Bearing in mind my view that the earliest church was still part of the general "Judaic" or Israelite religion, it seems to me (and others, of late, so I have heard) that we may need to look not for avowedly "Christian" texts, but among "Jewish" material of the period either side of the supposed Jesus date. In particular, I am drawn to some of the "seven heavens" material, Syriac "Psalms of Solomon" - that sort of thing. Much of the former is to be found in ~The Apocryphal Old Testament~ [Oxford, ed. Sparks]. Cf. Paul on the "Third heaven" in 2 Corinthians ... There are a couple of ideas. Any thoughts? Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 22:41:31 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:41:31 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Goodbye James Jungkans In-Reply-To: <199608072006.NAA02104@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 If you cannot understand that your post below is offensive and insulting, then there is clearly no point in trying to talk to you whatsoever, as you clearly wish to "file" my interests, duties and obligations in a box of your own choosing. What on earth you mean by "Ka-Ba-Lah" is beyond me, and the relevance of the number of volumes in your library escapes me. OK, you are a very clever fellow. If you post remarks to theos-l which I find insulting or offensive, then I am likely to respond a little angrily. If you are a theosophist (as expressed by the three onjects of the T.S.) then you could perhaps show more "brotherly" feeling, and not seek to provoke another such into engaging in a dialogue (confrontational, it would seem) with someone who has expressed the wish NOT to do so. I am copying this to theos-l to invite the comments of other readers, which I think is reasonable, under the circumstances. Alan Bain In message <199608072006.NAA02104@sure.net>, James S Yungkans writes >I decided to send a personal E-mail to see if (1) I am already on your >'Ignore' list, and (2) to determine if you are indeed a Theosophist, as you >claim. > >I needn't provide quotes from the last series of post on Theos-L, as both >you and I are aware of their content, meanings, presupositions. You seem to >feel that I am 'Offensive' when I comment on the lack of 'meat' in your >responses. This is unfortunate. At least in the past others have been >willing to enter into topical discussions, in detail, while on Theos-L (the >primary example being the current discussion on 'Historic Jesus.' Why do >you not wish to post material or discuss topics? Why do you choose to >respond agressively rather than constructivly? If your a theosophist (as >you claim to be) would you be so kind as to act like one, and not like the >current administration of the T.S. I would tend to agree with a statement >such as that you are a member of a theosophical society, but I would >definatly state, based upon what I have seen on Theos-L, that you are not a >Theosophist. If you disagree with this, read HPB's statements about what >one is, and tell me where I am mistaken. > >I will point out that I had considered obtaining your text to learn more >what you views were and where your views orginated. I have no problem in >purchasing the works of other Fellows, in fact that forms a major portion of >my library (which, by the say, exceeds 1000 volumes.) However, I cannot see >supporting the actions of an individual who does not share without payment, >considering himself better than everyone else. This is a personal view >which is shared by many root organizations including the founders of the >T.S., the anthroposophists, and the Max Heindel Rosicrucians. It is not a >matter of the purchase of a book, but that of demanding payment for anything >(and Everything) given. "'No Thoroughfare,' can neither come out of >[anyones] enclosure to join the Theosophical Society, nor, if he could, has >[the Society] room for one whose very religion [or philosophy] forbids >examination. The very root idea of the Society is FREE and FEARLESS >investigation." Ponder these words well. If you are a theosophist, as you >claim to be, HONOR THEM! > >As you have asked for me not to send for your book, I will honor your request. >As I do not expect, nor anticipate, any response to this letter, I will >conclude by stating that my understanding of Ka-Ba-Lah is greater than you >would enticipate. And as you said, "We Kabbalists are a close-knit bunch." >Perhaps you can find your way to being as closely knit when others do not >agree with your own views. I fear you may never reach this stage of >evolution, as you apparently cannot accept diversity within the small >confines of an E-mail mailing list. The courtesy of a reply is all that this >letter is meant to be, from one kabalist to another. If your >views/actions/beliefs are different than I have stated in my prior Theos-L >posts, I leave it to you to demonstrate it. > > James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. > Theosophist and Lifetime Fellow, > The Theosophical Society, ADAYR, INDIA > --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 8 01:00:36 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 02:00:36 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Nazarenes Mime-Version: 1.0 Part One of my "The Nazarenes, a Speculative Enquiry into Christian Origins" is available for free download from my homepage, URL below. (About 60K). The rest will follow in due course. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 8 03:08:24 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:08:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: alt.life-mars Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi There is a new usenet group alt.life-mars to discuss the issue of life on Mars. It would be interesting to see how the discussion goes. I am particularly interested due to CWL's statements on the issue. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 8 03:24:59 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:24:59 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960807222846.1a570b42@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Voice of the Silence There is a very interesting article on "How The Voice of Silence Was Written" by Boris de Zirkoff. Boris was HPB"s grand nephew and was the editor of the collected works. The article appeared in AT Nov/Dec 1988. HPB's own preface indicates that the VOS was from the original work Book of the Golden Precepts. However there is a very interesting letter that HPB wrote to her sister Vera P de Zhelihovsky in Feb 1890 wherein she says: "They are grand aphorisms, indeed, I may say so, because you know I did not invent them! I only translated them from Telugu, the oldest South Indian dialect. There are three treatises, about morals, and the moral principles of the Mongolian and Dravidian mystics. Some of the aphorisms are wonderfully deep and beautiful. Here they have created a perfect *furor*, and I think they would attract attention in Russia, too. Won't you translate them? It will be a fine thing to do." The above was published in The Path, New York, Vol X, December 1895, pp. 268. It is very interesting to note that HPB did not know Telugu. Then how did she translate? What occult/psychic method was used? These are very interesting questions. I do not know if any one will ever know. From pmmkien@main.com Thu Aug 8 03:38:56 1996 Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 22:38:56 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608080329.WAA30776@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: One Rock doesn't an Atlantis make... Regarding our discussion on Atlantis, Daniel Caldwell wrote: > >I copy below a message from "Blavatsky Net" about their >new web site. I think Theos-l subscribers who have >been following with interest the Atlantis discussion will >find some very interesting material at Blavatsky Net. > >Daniel H. Caldwell > >Blavatsky Net's posting is as follows: > > >>"Blavatsky Net" is pleased to join this conversation and announce a new web >>site devoted to researching the writings of, and vindicating, H. P. >>Blavatsky. The URL is > > www.blavatsky.org > >>As a contribution to the current discussion, Blavatsky Net has put online a >>page on the subject of Atlantis. It can be found under the "Evidence >>supportive of Theosophy" choice on the homepage. > >>Blavatsky Net will continue to add more information vindicating H. P. >Blavatsky. > >>Best wishes to All - Scribe > I urge any reader with an interest in this issue to take a look at the page on Blavatsky web, and the article posted there on Atlantis. I offer here a reply to that article which, I believe, does not vindicate the writings of HPB - or offer convincing evidence for the existence of Atlantis. I summarize the salient points presented on Blavatsky web: 1. HPB hailed the discovery (in her lifetime) of the mid-Atlantic ridge as a discovery of Atlantis - or its remains. The argument here is that the mid-Atlantic ridge or a significant portion of it was once above water. 2. The discovery of Cretaceous limestones and quartzitic siltstones recently in the area of the Vema fracture zone (actually the writers are probably referring to the Romanche fracture zone in the central Atlantic) is evidence for a sunken continent in the area. 3. Various seamounts that are visible in the new gravity map of the worlds oceans (featured recently in Discover magazine) are possible sites for the sunken continent. 4. Discussion was presented on a "horseshoe shape " in the south Atlantic and of its connection to Lemuria. RE THE MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE AND "HORSESHOE" There is really no evidence that a significant portion of this ridge was ever above water. HPB was dead wrong in welcoming its discovery as evidence for Atlantis. The evidence from geophysics is overwhelming that this is the site of a tectonic plate boundary that was active since the late Cretaceous, and that oceanic crust has been forming these since that time. The upwelling magma attaches itself to either plate, so that the youngest crust is at that site while the oldest crust is near the eastern and western continental margins. As the oceanic crust cools - it becomes denser and sinks. This is why you can predict the Atlantic bathymetry to a high degree of accuracy (excepting seamounts) according to the age of the crust. The idea that the mid-Atlantic ridge can (while spreading is going on) just rise out of the ocean and then decide to sink again - without leaving a trace in the gravity field - is preposterous. There is no mechanism for this - and no evidence. The well behaved bathymetry - just as prediced by theory argues against such an event having ever taken place. It is true that limestones have been found near the mid Atlantic ridge. But so what? These can be formed in water of depths typical of the mid-Atlantic ridge. There are other explanations for these - offered below. The fact that a major fracture zone in the Atlantic is identified with the Lemurian Atlantic ridge mentioned by HPB - doesn't tell us anything, except that "seek and ye shall find". There are many such similar zones, and is each one supposed to have its own mega-continent associated with it? RE THE ROMANCHE FRACTURE ZONE E. Bonatti of Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory reported finding Cretaceous limestones whose ages are older than the opening of the Atlantic ocean - an seismic data showing some thick sedimentary sequences in the Romache fracture zone . This has been hailed by the writer on Blavatsky web, and by others as evidence for a significant mass of continental material - and thus Atlantis. I believe it is nothing of the sort, and would like to summarize Bonatti's argument here: The structure of transform faults that offset the mid-Atlantic ridge is complex as one can see from the gravity map. Such a structure is composed of many strands that over the past 50 mill. years have had movement in many directions. It is quite plausible that a sliver of continental crust could have been rafted by such movements from a continental margin and find itself in the Romanche fracture zone. It takes more than one rock to make a continent the size of Atlantis. There are by the way other significant pieces of obducted continental material in the Atlantic - the most significant in the North Atlantic being the Jan Mayen block near Jan Mayen Island. But this one has almost certainly been submerged in the early stage of the opening of the North Atlantic when it was fragmented and severely thinned. And it is hardly large enough to make a continent - such as suggested by HPB. RE SEAMOUNTS These form in varous ways - most remain below the water line though some do form islands. They can be formed as a result of a hot spot in the Earth's mantle (the Hawaian chain, or Iceland). Sure - you can have a seamount formed that later in time as the crust cools is submerged. But this is nothing new discovered today. Of course if you want to place Atlantis on a seamount go ahead. And - as on the fabled Atlantis seamount, limestones may even form. But space is limited! These are small islands, not vast continents. Iceland - is a special case, formed as a result of a rather unique circumstance - probably an early Tertiary volcanic plume. There are no other candidates that approach that size. In summary - I see nothing in the evidence so far presented that vindicates HPB's statements on Atlantis. Quite the contrary, the verdict of today's science is that there was no such continent. Quite apart from the fact (evident from the gravity map mentioned) that there is no space in the Atlantic to put such a continent, it is very difficult to make a continent sink. Continental crust is of a lower density material, thick (> 30 km ) and floats high supported by the higher density mantle. ATLANTIS WAS A POPULAR 19th CEN HYPOTHESIS. It offered many explanations for geological similarities observed on both sides of the Atlantic, similarities in flora and fauna -- etc. - all of which are now better axplained by the fact that 100 mill years ago - the Atlantic was closed. But not by Atlantis! It's time that Theosophists recognized that fact and joined the 20th century. So what if HPB was echoing the popular thought of her time. It's not surprising. But Theosophists would do better to recognize that the grand old lady was wrong, and close the book on that issue, rather than constantly trying to vindicate her mistaken notions. Paul K. From uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Wed Aug 7 14:31:23 1996 Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 10:31:23 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Message-Id: <199608071530.AA03579@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: T.W. Back Issues The back issues of THEOSOPHY WORLD, and of the associated discussion are available online. (Note that this is a completely independent theosophical project from the theos-l discussion lists maintained by John Mead.) To obtain a list of available files, send a message consisting of "index" to: theos-talk-request@theosophy.com Back issues of the discussion are in files of the format theos-talk.YYMM where "YY" is the year and "MM" is the month, like file "theos-talk.9606" for June 1996. Back issues of the magazine are in files of the format: theos-world.YYMM where "YY" and "MM" are again the year and month. The August issue just came out a few days ago. To receive a back issue, send a message to "theos-talk-request" consisting of "get" followed by the name of the desired file, like: get theos-world.9606 get theos-world.9607 get theos-world.9608 end to get all three back issues. Any file in the archives may be obtained this way. ---- Contents of the first three issues are: June, 1996 > "Looking to the Future" by John Paul Rolston > "Theosophy in Tibet: The Teachings of the Jonangpa School" > by David Reigle > "The Masters Revealed" by Dara Eklund > "Ergates: The Energetic Worker" by Rich Taylor > "Embarking on a New Attempt" by Rodolfo Don > "The Paracelsian Order" by John H. Drais > "Theosophy in the Computer Age" by Jerry Hejka-Ekins > "What Are the Life-Atoms?" by Bee Brown > "Teaching the Soul Direct" from a conversation between Charles > Johnson and Madame Blavatsky > "Rights, Duties, Privileges" by Henry T. Edge July, 1996 > "Narada: A Study in The Secret Doctrine" by G. de Purucker > "Technical Terms in Stanza I" by David Reigle > "Theosophy: A Living Truth" by Rodolfo Don > "Current Superstitions" by Dara Eklund > "Psychic and Spiritual Path" by G. de Purucker > "The Archetypla Virtue" by B. P. Wadia > "Transition of Kingdoms on Globe D" by Eldon Tucker > "HPB In the News Again!" (Anonymous) > "States of Matter" by Eldon Tucker > "HPB In Tibet" (Anonymous) > "Models of Karma" by Eldon Tucker > "Alexandria West: Open to the Public" (Anonymous) > "Theosophical Encyclopeadia in Preparation" by Philip Harris August, 1996 > "Blavatsky Net Goes Online" by Scribe > "Spiritual Evolution" by Raghavan Iyer > "Original Edition of 'The Voice of the Silence'" by John H. Drais > "Appealing to the Higher Nature" by Henry T. Edge > "Psychic Powers" by Andrew Rooke > "What if I Met a Master" by Eldon Tucker > "Once Again Blavatsky Words Are Proven True" by Radda Bai > "Armageddon" by Mrs. Harry Benjamin > "PI In Base 12 Notation" > "Each Member a Center" by William Quan Judge > "When Our Memory Fails Us" by Eldon Tucker > "Theosophical Glossary and the Psychic" by Mrs. Harry Benjamin > "Cycles and the Earth's Core" by Eldon Tucker > "Monads, Principles, and Sutratmans" by G. de Purucker THEOSOPHY WORLD is an internet magazine dedicated to the theosophical philosophy and its practical application in the modern world. To submit papers or news items, subscribe, or unsubscribe, write to theos-world@theosophy.com. (The editoral slant of the magazine is towards exploring the theosophical philosophy, with an attempt to keep materials "on topic" and civil in nature. The associated discussion list is not solely limited to items appearing in the magazine; it is still experimental in nature and is subject to change.) From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 8 03:26:05 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:26:05 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960807222951.1d9f5474@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Voice of the Silence There is a very interesting article on "How The Voice of Silence Was Written" by Boris de Zirkoff. Boris was HPB"s grand nephew and was the editor of the collected works. The article appeared in AT Nov/Dec 1988. HPB's own preface indicates that the VOS was from the original work Book of the Golden Precepts. However there is a very interesting letter that HPB wrote to her sister Vera P de Zhelihovsky in Feb 1890 wherein she says: "They are grand aphorisms, indeed, I may say so, because you know I did not invent them! I only translated them from Telugu, the oldest South Indian dialect. There are three treatises, about morals, and the moral principles of the Mongolian and Dravidian mystics. Some of the aphorisms are wonderfully deep and beautiful. Here they have created a perfect *furor*, and I think they would attract attention in Russia, too. Won't you translate them? It will be a fine thing to do." The above was published in The Path, New York, Vol X, December 1895, pp. 268. It is very interesting to note that HPB did not know Telugu. Then how did she translate? What occult/psychic method was used? These are very interesting questions. I do not know if any one will ever know. From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 8 04:11:12 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:11:12 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960808001103_254658249@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Freedom of Thought Ann, I've probably seen the same pictures. Being a Virgo I tend to get a bit earthy at times. Chuck the Heretic From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Thu Aug 8 08:58:12 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:55:12 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <1065CE4D98@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Jerry wrote >Even the earliest Toldoth story fragments only dates to the 13th >century, though Tertullian refers to the main elements of it, >thus showing that this story must date at least to the second >century. Tertullian? Where? Abrantes From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Aug 8 18:17:49 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 14:17:49 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608081817.OAA13039@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Shattered dreams/intellectual freedom Lately, as indicated in a previous post, I've been rereading Bruce Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived, published in 1980. I have wondered why he never published again, and think perhaps this passage explains something: Most of the writing on Theosophy up to the present has evidenced two approaches. Writings by non-Theosophists have often been accusatory in tone. They focused on the negative: charges of fraud, deception, and improper conduct by the founder. Most of the responses written by Theosophists have manifested a second bias. They have offered blanket defenses of Theosophy, often responding to critics not in terms of the substance of charges but by repeating old arguments or trying to discredit the critics personally. Both attitudes have important effects on the understanding of Theosophy and, in combination, tend to perpetuate the antagonistic relation between the Theosophical movement and the general culture. The first approach lacks appreciation for, and thus cuts us off from, a significant part of our cultural heritage, a pioneer movement with important consequences both East and West. The second, which often involves a refusal to confront the issues raised by the first approach, displays a polemical defensiveness and thus prolongs a situation in which important internal problems within the Theosophical movement go unexamined. This book attempts a third approach in the hope of moving discussion beyond the limitations of these two positions. On the one hand, it views appreciatively the contributions of the Theosophical movement to culture and society; on the other hand, it discusses Theosophy's problems and internal conflicts. --------------------------------------------------------------- Judging from the 16 years since this was published, it does not seem likely that Campbell was satisfied with the results of his attempt to move discussion "beyond the limitations of these two positions." The same summer that Campbell's book appeared, Marion Meade's Madame Blavatsky was published. Both were ignored if not attacked within the Theosophical organizations, and there was simply no effort to engage their arguments within the movement. Then, two years later, Tillett's masterful The Elder Brother appeared. Its only acknowledgment in the Adyar TS was references to "a certain book" (by Dora Kunz and Radha Burnier) which made allegations about Leadbeater that were not worth answering. Except for a favorable piece in the Eclectic Theosophist about Tillett's book, I can think of no sign at any time in the 1980s that any Theosophical organization was willing to move discussion of Theosophical history beyond the simple attack/defend polarity of the past. Never was the work of Campbell, Meade or Tillett treated as anything other than enemy attacks. In the 1990s, it was my turn, along with Joscelyn Godwin and Peter Washington, to be attacked or ignored by the Theosophical organizations. Again, three authors attempted to promote a new and more nuanced, balanced approach to HPB and her influence. Again, as in the eighties, attempts to move discussion of Theosophical history in a more productive and less polarized direction were stifled by the orthodoxy of the Theosophical organizations. In Wheaton, Pasadena, and the ULT, Sylvia Cranston's hagiographical HPB was acclaimed as the only worthwhile book on Theosophical history, and all others dismissed, ignored or attacked. So in 1996, we are not a step further along the path toward intellectual freedom in the discussion of Theosophical roots than we were in 1980. In fact, we are going in the opposite direction, with less and less indication that Theosophists will ever be encouraged by their leaders to consider any alternative views different from those preached in Theosophical publications of the past. In response to Paul K.'s question about why Theosophists can't admit the truth about HPB's claims regarding Atlantis: there has been absolutely no precedent set within the movement to my knowledge that would allow members to seriously entertain the possibility that HPB was wrong about anything, ever. People are therefore stuck on a "sandbank of thought." All the organizations have chosen to adopt a "high tension" position vis-a-vis the values of society at large (including scientific advances) rather than a "low tension" position that would encourage rapprochement and reevaluation of dogmas. High tension groups maintain a strong internal cohesion, but at the cost of becoming steadily less relevant and influential. Part of the downfall of the Three Objects in this century has been due to the unwillingness of Theosophical organizations to adhere to the first and second objects when it comes to evaluating their own history. If they cannot do that in a brotherly/sisterly and objective fashion, why should they be trusted in realms more remote from their own backyards? From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Thu Aug 8 20:14:44 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:14:44 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608082014.AA18136@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: The Existence of Jesus >In message <9608062331.AA02825@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry >Hejka-Ekins > writes >>However, such >>a debate between the Jews and the Christian sects in the early >>first century would have made sense, and must have occurred. >>But such debates we not preserved by the Jews nor the >>Christians (who have no documentation of this nature whatsoever >>for this period). Alan Bain writes: >A simple opinion (my own, but shared by others no doubt) is that >such debates could not have occurred for the reason that in the >early first century all "Christians" were also kinds of "Jews." >The earliest Christian Church of all was at Jerusalem, probably >surving the destruction of the Temple, but maybe not, until the >Bar Kochba rebellion of 135, when the Romans threw them all out. >This was headed by James (Jacob) "The Brother of the Lord" and >Paul had to get their approval for his own work - which took >place in the early first century. Some of the members of this >Mother Church were also Pharisees, according to the N.T. itself. > >Alan JHE From what I have been able to get out of controversies that surround the Dead Sea Scroll findings, we have learned that the Jews of the period were divided into lots of little factions, and that they were constantly bickering over theological minute. No doubt, at least one of those factions represented the beginnings of modern Christianity. Christian scholars have been hoping against hope that these scrolls would throw more light upon these primitive Christians. There have been a few false alarms (remember the pierced and piercing Messiah?), but so far nothing definitive has come up that I have heard of. You might recall that they fired the head of the translating team a few years ago (for publicly uttering anti-semitic remarks and for alcoholism), and discovered that he had been secretly hording a key document that identifies the group who wrote the scrolls in the first place--and it wasn't the Essenes, as everyone assumed for all these years. It wasn't the Pharisees either, but more closely connected with the Sadducees. I can't find my files on this at the moment, and my memory isn't recalling the details. But I do remember that we have learned that first century Judaism was a chaotic mess with lots of infighting going on. If anything, recent scholarship is showing that HPB's very complicated account of early Christianity is more realistic than the much simpler explanations we have been fed all of these years (I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of her ideas, but of their level of sophistication). The early history of Christianity is proving to be far more complicated than most people realize, or even want to deal with. I think that one of the major problems that keeps good scholarship on the origins of the Christian religion from advancing is plain old politics. N.T. Biblical scholars look at things from the point of view of New Testament Christianity. Jewish Scholars look at things from the point of view of Rabbinical Judaism. Mix that with personal ambition and greed, and documents get suppressed. So when some Gnostic scholar like Elaine Pagels comes in to decode the early church politics revealed in the Nag Hammadi texts from the Gnostic perspective she gets raked over the coals. And Pagels is a solid member of that discourse community and her ideas weren't even that radical! Think of how marginalized some scholar would become in the community if he were to investigate possible connections between say, the Nazars and the early Christians. What respected academic press would risk flushing their reputation down the toilet by publishing it? HPB predicted that documents would come to light when the world was ready for them. IMO, the fiasco of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the world is far from ready to receive anything as earth shaking as definitive documents on the origins of Christianity. Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From RIhle@aol.com Thu Aug 8 22:46:32 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:46:32 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960808184631_174498278@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Shattered dreams/intellectual freedom K. Paul Johnson writes> >Never was the work >of Campbell, Meade or Tillett treated as anything other than >enemy attacks. >[snip] >In the 1990s, it was my turn, along with Joscelyn Godwin and Peter >Washington, >to be attacked or ignored by the Theosophical organizations. Richard Ihle writes> Paul, as usual, I agree with the many cogent points you make in this post. It was also interesting to me because I had just pulled THE MASTERS REVEALED off the shelf again, planning to take it along with me--"as good company"--on a four-day trip to Bemidji, Minnesota. Oh yes, you were in exceptional form during the period when you wrote that book. One of the many passages I have highlighted is the following: "To call the occultist view of the Masters a myth is not to deny its value or validity, but rather to characterize its function for those who accept it." Oh, yes. . . . I'll probably show THE MASTERS REVEALED around a little while I'm up in Bemidji--just to impress people that I personally know the author. We're having a huge "all-classes reunion" which should be fun; however, for some reason I let them book me for the big "variety show"--I'm the "humorous monologue act," supposedly my strong suit in this world. (No wonder I can't parlay "Psychogenesis" into a bunch of disciples for myself. . . .) Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 8 23:09:52 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 19:09:52 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960808190951_595116782@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Blether Alan, HOw did you know? Chuck the Ancient Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 8 23:09:54 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 19:09:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960808190954_595117587@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: alt.life-mars Doss, I think the newsgroup may be more interested in actual evidence than the peculiar illusions of the Bishop. Unless, of course, they need a good laugh. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 8 23:10:51 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 19:10:51 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960808191050_595117651@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: One Rock doesn't an Atlantis make... Theosophists will be all to happy to join the twentieth century--just in time for the twenty-second. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 8 23:09:55 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 19:09:55 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960808190954_595117684@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Doodoo This is how wars start! Each county's savages invade each other. Chuck the Heretic From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Aug 8 22:11:45 1996 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 18:11:45 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608082318.TAA26818@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: goodbye James Jungkans > but I would >>definatly state, based upon what I have seen on Theos-L, that you are not a >>Theosophist. Dear God Jungkans, Please allow Bishop Dr. Alan Baines to be a Theosophist. Amen. Liesel From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 8 23:57:34 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:57:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: alt.life-mars In-Reply-To: <960808190954_595117587@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: As for Mars, I will wait and see what comes out. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 8 04:54:28 1996 Date: 08 Aug 96 00:54:28 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: VOS AND DE ZIRKOFF Message-Id: <960808045427_74024.3352_BHT144-1@CompuServe.COM> Ramdoss writes: There is a very interesting article on "How The Voice of Silence Was Written" by Boris de Zirkoff. Boris was HPB"s grand nephew and was the editor of the collected works. The article appeared in AT Nov/Dec 1988.ove was published in The Path, New York, Vol X, December 1895, pp. 268. (SNIP) Blavatsky: "They are grand aphorisms, indeed, I may say so, because you know I did not invent them! I only translated them from Telugu, the oldest South Indian dialect. There are three treatises, about morals, and the moral principles of the Mongolian and Dravidian mystics. Some of the aphorisms are wonderfully deep and beautiful. Here they have created a perfect *furor*, and I think they would attract attention in Russia, too. Won't you translate them? It will be a fine thing to do." Ramdoss: It is very interesting to note that HPB did not know Telugu. Then how did she translate? What occult/psychic method was used? These are very interesting questions. I do not know if any one will ever know. Keith In the QUEST edition of VOS there is an introduction by Boris De Zirkoff. In it he relates some of the history surrounding its production including: "help{ing] students to transform their thought into action, their aspirtations into compassionate deeds". It was written on a vacation to Fountainbleau, France in 1891. Blavatsky reports "stange astral sights in these glades and valleys and dark pine woods." Annie Besant and A.P. Sinnet were said to be much impressed. She is reported as wiritng without notes or references as if from memory. Thus the tablets of Kiu-Ti did not seem to be physically before her, but in her "mind's eye" perhaps. It was the last work she saw to press herself. Namaste Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 8 05:27:10 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:27:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: VOS AND DE ZIRKOFF In-Reply-To: <960808045427_74024.3352_BHT144-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Keith Price wrote: > Ramdoss writes: > There is a very interesting article on "How The Voice of Silence Was > Written" by Boris de Zirkoff. Boris was HPB"s grand nephew and was the > editor of the collected works. The article appeared in AT Nov/Dec 1988.ove was > published in The Path, New York, Vol X, December 1895, pp. 268. > (SNIP) > > Blavatsky: > "They are grand aphorisms, indeed, I may say so, because you know I > did not invent them! I only translated them from Telugu, the oldest South > Indian dialect. There are three treatises, about morals, and the moral > principles of the Mongolian and Dravidian mystics. Some of the aphorisms are > wonderfully deep and beautiful. Here they have created a perfect *furor*, > and I think they would attract attention in Russia, too. Won't you > translate them? It will be a fine thing to do." > Ramdoss: > It is very interesting to note that HPB did not know Telugu. Then how did > she translate? What occult/psychic method was used? These are very > interesting questions. I do not know if any one will ever know. > > > Keith > > In the QUEST edition of VOS there is an introduction by Boris De Zirkoff. In it > he relates some of the history surrounding its production including: > > "help{ing] students to transform their thought into action, their aspirtations > into compassionate deeds". > > > It was written on a vacation to Fountainbleau, France in 1891. Blavatsky > reports "stange astral sights in these glades and valleys and dark pine woods." > Annie Besant and A.P. Sinnet were said to be much impressed. > She is reported as wiritng without notes or references as if from memory. Thus > the tablets of Kiu-Ti did not seem to be physically before her, but in her > "mind's eye" perhaps. It was the last work she saw to press herself. > Namaste > Keith Price > > > The very interesting point that I noticed is that this is the only time that any reference was made in any literature about any material being translated from a dravidian language. Also I see the HPB's emphasis on treatises on morals, and moral principles of the dravidian and mongolian mystics. The implication as I see it, is perhaps the morals and moral principles when applied by an individual in his/her day to day living, there is a transformation in his/her attitudes and approaches to life and his/her relationships to other human beings. A further extrapolation may lead us to the First Object - practical Universal Brotherhood in action. Just a thought. Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ramadoss@eden.com Fri Aug 9 04:05:15 1996 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 23:05:15 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960808230904.18ffb578@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Publishing Books At 02:19 PM 8/8/96 -0400, Paul Johnson wrote: >Lately, as indicated in a previous post, I've been rereading >Bruce Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived, published in 1980. I >have wondered why he never published again, and think perhaps >this passage explains something: >>>>>clip <<<<< Publishing of books has been on my mind ever since I saw Internet in action. A few days ago I saw an article in the local newspaper where the costs of electronic/CD Rom publication as compared to paper publishing was discussed. It appears that the actual mechanical production cost of printing a book is 100 times that of putting the same on a CD. Putting a book on a web is even less compared to a CD. For example a book on CD can cost about 5 cents compared to several dollars in hard copy. When we consider books on Theosophical matters, the readership in the USA is small. I do not know what is the number of copies of a Theosophical book that the publisher can sell say in the first year. In addition, copyright for most of the Theosophical Classics have expired. So we can soon see them in CD form or on web sites. It may be time for all writers on Theosophical matters as well as the publishers take a hard look at the what the future is likely to be from a business standpoint. Soon it may be no longer cost effective to publish a new book on paper due to a limited number of copies that can be sold. It may even lead to drastic shut down of the paper based publication houses. In electronic publication as well on CD rom, it is an one shot deal. There is no need for republication unless the author wants to change the material for correction or addition or for other reasons. The CD Rom which stores 650 MBs of storage can be mass produced for around $1.00 each. On web storage and access, just the changes are made to the file and that is all to it. So here we are, that everything is pointing towards electronic publication on Internet and CD Rom. These two are going to reduce the cost to end users so that poor can afford to get hold of the latest material published. It may be time for all the writers whose books do not have mass appeal to start thinking how best they could publish their books. A model already exists in the computer area. There are several good programs which are either freeware or shareware. The former is Free. The latter is a software one can get a fully functional copy and use it for 30 days (most use it longer) and register it for a nominal fee so that one can get a printed users manual and tech support. In electronic publishing, writers can put their books on Internet and any one who reads them feels that they have received something of value can send in a small check in appreciation to encourage the writer. This may come about one of these days. I thought I should share the above scenario with all present and future writers who may be thinking about the issues. MK Ramadoss ********************** end of message ***************** From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 9 04:10:23 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 00:10:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960809001022_595360538@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Shattered dreams/intellectual freedom Rich, The last thing in the world you need is a bunch of disciples. Believe me, I know. Chuck the Heretic From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Aug 9 01:21:08 1996 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 09:09:45 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608090512.AA26395@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Books in ASCII Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: Martin_Euser Subject: Books in ASCII Hello! e> It's just making a link to Theosophical books, let people pick one of the BTW, I have english texts of "Thoughtforms" and some articles by Sinnett (from a book "Occult essays", 1905) and CWL & AB in ASCII files. So i can send them to those who collects files like those for WWW sites. Does someone have a pictures from "Thoughtforms" in files? I have most of them, but they aren't satisfactory - they were scanned using Video-blaster and Sony camera. IMO, "Thoughtforms" is a nice source material for creating online Web-document. W/best wishes, 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 Aug 9 01:21:27 1996 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 09:09:06 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608090512.AA26394@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: K.H. Letter Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: K.H. Letter Hello! r> The following is the last letter that was received from KH by Annie Besant Thanks for this nice letter. I haven't found even the restricted version in two volumes of "Letters...". Maybe there was a third one? KH> A psychic and a pranayamist who has got confused by the KH> vagaries of the members. When translating this to russian i've got confused, too. :) What does it mean? - i.e. meaning is relatively clear, but what is it for - maybe it should be read as "To a psychic..." ? We here also have a letter like this - it was received last year. A women passed it to a presidium of the Roerich congress which took place in IX'1995. No one had seen this women after, of cource. The letter is anonymous, but some people believe that it is from "higher source", as they say. Maybe i'll translate it for you, but it would be difficult to keep close to original. Maybe to preserve both meaning & style the additional words in square brackets would be nesessary, like they are in some translations of sutras. You've seen of cource, how a short sentence from Vedanta-sutra grows to entire paragraph when translated to european languages. Fortunately, this letter isn't so laconic as sutras, it's rather like Bhagavad-gita :) W/best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet P.S. I didn't receive your opinion about Krishnamurti. Please repeat it to the following address: Address for personal replies: Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Aug 9 01:21:41 1996 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 09:10:20 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608090512.AA26396@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Genetics Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: Keith Price Subject: Genetics Hello! k> Life replicates itself by DNA and the gene is selfish in that it takes BTW, have you heard about the scandalous Lysenko theory? He tried to refute genetics (better to say, orthodox genetics, he called it Weissmanism-Mendelism). His theory is also known as "Neolemarqueism". The main point of his teaching was the idea that living beings may change their genotype according to outer conditions. Climat of Russia doesn't allow to grow a requiered amount of high quality "hard wheat", because it's "summer grain" and we buy it abroad. Lysenko (who was at first orthodox genetist) tryed to create a new sort of winter crops which will be a "hard wheat". He thought the following: I'll sow the hard grain in the autumn, most will be frozen out, but due occasional mutation some may survive and I'll get frost-proof winter sort of "hard wheat". He done it, next year some ears really survived, but the grain quality was bad. They looked as well-known winter crops. Via gene analysis he found that entire genotype and chromosome quantity was the different, but matched "soft wheat". He repe- ated this experiment many times to make sure that seeds of soft wheat don't occasionally get to sow material. Then he decided, that genetics is refuted and one can change biological types from one to another applying different outer in- fluenses. Since his theory became official in USSR, many orthodox genetists were put under repressions. But he couldn't apply his theory for the profit of agriculture - i.e. create new sorts which are better than the old ones. Then his theory was declared non-scientific and his experiments - a humbug and orthodox genetics returned to official favour. My resume is the following: He dicovered the real thing, but he didn't understand what he have discovered. Types can't be voluntary changed, but they can migrate from one existing type to another. It proves the theosophical idea about group spirits. The plant or animal can live when it is directed by some group sprirt. If the circum- stances are not suitable for this "style of life" it can die or fall under direction of other group spirit of much closer type. Man can't create a new group spirit, so because of that he can't create new types - only slightly vary in one type. Dogs, unlike other animals, are of rich variety, because they are close to individualisation. Dog's living conditions are very different, depending mostly on charachter of its master, so group spirit weakens his control. There are other facts, which set an orthodox genetics under question. Scientists say that mutations are accidental and fit- test survive. But have anyone seen, how due accidental disc error Windows 3.1 became Windows'95? (But my instance is wrong. Quality of MS products makes me think that they are born THIS way ;) In Chernobyl zone because of radiation the tomatoes reach very big size. If mutation already went correct way, we only have to collect the seeds, sow them in clear zone and enjoy giant tomatoes. But it doesn't work. Tomatoes return to their original sizes. In beginning of this century russian selectioner Michurin created many new sorts of apples. But they were unstable and now are dege- nerated. All these facts are to a benefit of a group sprirt theory. W/best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet Address for personal replies: Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 9 18:01:56 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 96 14:01:56 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608091801.OAA09096@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: the 1900 letter Dear Konstantin, The letter to Annie Besant was written in the margin of a letter from a B.W. Mantri of Bombay who was asking questions about psychism. So K.H. or whoever wrote it was simply identifying Mantri in the first line that confused you. I find it very interesting that the content of the K.H. letter emphasizes exactly the points that Olcott was making at the same time. People were beginning to accept anything Besant said as gospel, well before she became TS president, and to treat HPB as an all-knowing authority figure too. 1900 was a year that Olcott became sufficiently worried about these trends as to publicly address them in no uncertain terms. See Old Diary Leaves for details. Cheers Paul From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 9 17:00:50 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 16:57:50 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <3071EC6E8E@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Jerry wrote >Yes, and you also showed that Dr. Lardner detailed the differences between >Marcion's Luke and the Church's Luke. Therefore Dr. Lardner is also saying >that Marcion accepted only his copy of Luke, not the Church's... >Even if Marcion's gospel of Luke is an adulterated version (as argued by >Tertullian) of the one used by the Church, the fact remains that Marcion's >understanding of the historicity of Jesus is vastly different from that >held by the Church. It's clear to me that Marcion, have a different edition of gospel of Luke. It's clear also that Marcion didn't accept the Jesus in the flesh. Blavastsky is correct here. So you recognices that Marcion accepted some parts from from Luke's gospel (used by the church) as authentical. And as Dr. Lardner explains, such parts INCLUDE chapters 23 and chapter 3:1 that CLEARLY refers to Pilate. So, even thought Marcion rejects Jesus in flesh, and had opinions vastly different from that held by the church, Marcion accepts that Jesus lived under Pilate, and then rejects Toldoth at THIS POINT. Do you agree? >I'm having a lot a problems with your logic and the conclusions you are >deriving from the above string of information. How does your conclusion >that Luke "is an orthodox" address HPB's argument that the historical >Jesus lived in 100 B.C.? Are you implying that Luke had some special >knowledge of Jesus, or that he belonged to a Syrian group that had special >knowledge of Jesus? Further, are you implying that the Gospel of Luke was >written by the apostle Luke, and/or represents the apostle Luke's ideas? >I hope you don't hold this belief. I cited quotation from Eusebius, Iraenaeus, and a prologue found at church of Rome 180AD (remember that as in a previus e-mail we already conclude that gnostics description given by Iraenaeus are in accordance with the recent discoveries in Nag-Hammadi). All these references comes from ortodoxy, so I conclude that Luke had good relations with ortodoxy. All this references states that Luke was disciple of Paul and wrote the gospel. And as Luke chapter 23 talk about Pilate, these references can be used to confirm the hypothese that Jesus lived under Pilate. If Luke had some special knowledge about Jesus, it is not clear at this passages. Nor it is my original intention to follow this path, now. I am ONLY trying to show that TODAY the references show that Jesus lived under Pilate, and Toldoth was wrong at this point. Even heretics (those people rejected by the ortodoxy) refers to Jesus living under Pilate, such as marcionites and paulicians what I already showed (because they accepted Luke chapter 23 and chapter 3:1). The question of NT's authenticity is not the point here. What we have to understand is that the gospels and pauline epistles follow the original doctrines of the majority party of the church (ortodoxy), and follows the original belief that Jesus lived under Pilate. They are not forgeries or something else (even though there is some interpolations as 1 John 5:7 cited by HPB at BOOK III chapter IV,161 - start 153, end 185). Surely others christians doctrines (such as gnosticism and docetism) were omitted from gospels. If quotations about Pilate in gospels were interpolations it would be interesting to investigate if there is some contradiction between ancient greek manuscripts about such passages. A good work about it is written by K.Alland, M.Black, C.M.Martini, Bruce Metzger - The greek new Testament. Church belief that evangelists wrote theirs gosples independently, using the oral tradition and some manuscripts that comes from the early christians communities (Catechism 126, Dei Verbum19) There are also others theories about it. (Enc. Britannica Vol2,629) He shown that (Britannica Vol22,337). >In my last posting to you,I suggested that our inquiry might be more fruitful if we were to >look at the teachings of the Ophite sect and investigate the Syrian heresies. According to >my reading of HPB, she is suggesting that elements of the primitive Church and ties to the >historical Jesus may be found here. I am looking for such information. If I will have some success, I will write. But I think that is interesting ALSO investigate about christians apostolic fathers, that you already admitted that have a limited knowledge about them >I assume that since HPB cited this, she also believes it to be so. I have >not read Adv. Marcion, nor do I have the time to plow through such an >extensive work at this time, so I have no opinion of my own, nor did I >express one. Have you already think that HPB, may be wrong in some points here? Abrantes From theos@sure.net Fri Aug 9 21:35:09 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 14:35:09 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608092135.OAA16335@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: "God" speaks, and other Flapdoddle I was not going to respond, as I consider the positing of a personal dialogue, without the permission of the originator, to be very "Un-Theosophical", however this may develop into excellent difinitive statement as to what a theosophist is, or rather should be. Liesel writes: "Dear God Jungkans, > Please allow Bishop Dr. Alan Baines to be a Theosophist. > Amen. > Liesel" If I were 'God', I would set my hand upon the lad, annoint him with oil, and declare with a loud voice "THOU ART A THEOSOHIST" (perhaps even blow the Shofir to honor of HIS 'God'.) Unfortunatly, this is not be possible, as I don't claim to be God, only someone with an opinion (and not always the most favorable :( I stated, in my post to Dr. Bain "read HPB's statements about what one [a theosophist] is, and tell me where I am mistaken." I will provide the following so that future 'comments' may prove both illuminating and beneficial for us all: " Are they what they claim to be - students of natural law, of ancient and modern philosophy, and even of exact science? Are they Deists, Atheists, Socialists, Materialists, or Idealists; or are they but a schism of modern Spiritualism - mere visionaries?...The Society's members represent the most varied nationalities and races, and were born and educated in the most dissimilar creeds...Some believe in one thing, others in another. Some incline tward the ancient magic, or secret wisdom that was taught in the sancuaries, which was the very opposite of supernaturalism or diabolism; others in modern spiritualism [Spiritism], or intercourse with spirits of the dead; still others in mesmerism [Magnetic/Pranic healing (i.e. Therapeutic Touch, Rekei, and the like)] or animal magnetism, or only an ocult dynamic force in nature. A certain number have scarcely yet aquired any difinitive belief, but are in a state of attentive expectancy; and there are even those who call themselves materialists, in a certain sense. "... Of Athiests and and bigoted sectarians of any religion [or philosophy], there are none in the Society...for once they cannot free themselves from the [their] conception of the abstract ideal of power, cause, necessity, and effect, they can be considered as athiests only in respect to a personal God, and not to the Universal Soul of the Pantheist. On the other hand, the bigoted sectarian, fenced in, as he is, with a creed upon every paling is written the warning, >> "'No Thoroughfare,' can neither come out of >>[anyones] enclosure to join the Theosophical Society, nor, if he could, has >>[the Society] room for one whose very religion [or philosophy] forbids >>examination. The very root idea of the Society is FREE and FEARLESS >>investigation." "... It ties to act upon the wisdom of the old Buddhistic axiom, 'Honor thine own faith, and do not slander that of others'...All have an equal right to have the essential features of their religious belief [or philosophy] laid before the tribunal of an impartial world..." [Source: "What are the Theosophists", The Theosophist, Vol 1, No. 1, October 1879] I stand before the tribunal of Theos-L. I, having been brought here by a Bishop (of what I must ask) to stand and answer for "seek[ing] to provoke another such [theosophist] into engaging in a dialogue [on one's philosophy]" Of this, I am guilty. However, HPB states that "all have an equal right to have...their religous belief laid before the tribunal" I am therefore not guilty of a crime, but OF ACTING AS A THEOSOPHIST! My mannerisms may seem harsh at times, but I feel that my point and purpose has always been theosophical in intent. I might ask if Bishop Bain "could perhaps show more "brotherly" feeling" himself before placing me in judgement for my actions. As he states that he "hope[s] to be of service, and to share what we have in amity with other theosophical, occult, and esoteric organizations", I would hope that he would find the time to do so, rather than condemm another for the manner in which he feels something is said. HPB once said "Men slander only those whom they hate - or fear." I would hope that Alan would listen to his own words when he writes "we also recognise that family members do not always agree... What I personally hope we shall be able to do is the celebrate our differences, to find joy in the diversity" In fellowship James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 9 16:29:23 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 17:29:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Books in ASCII In-Reply-To: <199608090512.AA26395@angel.elektra.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608090512.AA26395@angel.elektra.ru>, Macnev Uri writes > BTW, I have english texts of "Thoughtforms" and some articles by >Sinnett (from a book "Occult essays", 1905) and CWL & AB in ASCII files. >So i can send them to those who collects files like those for WWW sites. Yes please! I just got my own site, and have only used 131K of 5MB so far. Part of my long term planning is to make theosophical classics available on the Web page, with a short introduction and maybe a disclaimer (I don't necessarily believe everything in a document just because I make it available for study). Also, as there is probably a lot of material waiting, I would change the material around from time to time. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 9 22:48:13 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:48:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Existence of Jesus In-Reply-To: <9608082014.AA18136@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608082014.AA18136@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >I do >remember that we have learned that first century Judaism was a >chaotic mess with lots of infighting going on. Oh indeed! Prof. Jacob Neusner (Formerly of Brown University, RI but now somewhere else) makes it clear that there were many "Judaisms" at the time, as he puts it! In my "The Nazarenes" (in a section not yet on my homepage) I take a look at this. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 9 23:20:03 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 19:20:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960809192002_596038567@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Publishing Books Doss, The reason people who are into publishing as a business do not want to go the electronic route is that is nearly impossible to keep control of the material. Copyright is hard enough to enforce now, with scanners and copy machines. Electronically it is virtually impossible. Once any material is put out on the internet it becomes, for all practical purposes, public domain and while copyright laws cover such material, they are unenforceable. Chuck From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 9 22:48:08 1996 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 18:48:08 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608092355.TAA29807@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: genetics Very interesting, those Lysenko experiments. It shows that environment has some sort of influence on the human being, and not only heredity. I wonder for how many generations Lysenko conducted the experiments of getting mutations because of a change in the environment. I think that if you put a number of generations into the same environment, the change will become permanent sooner or later, but I don't have any scientific proof of it. Seems to me that if enough individuals feed the same change into the group spirit this would have an influence. Liesel From theos@netcom.com Fri Aug 9 13:34:12 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 06:34:12 -0700 (PDT) From: theos Subject: Web Page Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi! The TSA's Web Page is at http://www.theosophical.org. Best regards. From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 9 16:05:24 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 17:05:24 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <8MZXKKAEH2CyEwnh@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Web Page In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , theos writes >Hi! > >The TSA's Web Page is at http://www.theosophical.org. > >Best regards. Thanks. There is already a link to your address from the THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL page (see bottom URL below) Fraternally, Alan Bain, F.T.S. --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Aug 10 05:27:09 1996 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:27:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Publishing Books In-Reply-To: <960809192002_596038567@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I am sure that electronic publishing is yet to evolve so that the author's copyrights are still enforceable. Only future can tell how this whole thing is going to evolve. While there are many new books in the market that I am interested in, personally due to financial limitations I do not buy them. If shareware books are available, I would be reading more books than I do at present. So personally I am looking forward to shareware books. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Sat Aug 10 15:15:59 1996 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:12:59 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <46B3582894@serv.peb.ufrj.br> In this e-mail another argument that show that we can not say that Jesus lived one century before, because at time of romam emperor Domitian (reigned during 81-96), two grandsons of St Jude (the brother of Jesus) were presented before emperor, and so it is impossible to admit that Jesus lived 1 B.C. Gibbon vol I, chapter XVI page 214 [It is somewhat remarkable that the flames of the war consumed almost at the same time the Temple of Jerusalem and the Capitol of Rome (the capitol was burnt during the civil war beteween Vitellius and Vespasian 19 december AD 69, On 10 august AD 70 was destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, by the hands of the jews themselves rather than by those of romans), and it appears no less singular that the tribute which devotion had destined to the former should have been converted by the power of an assaulting victor to restore and adorn the splendor of the latter. The emperor levied a general capitation tax on the jewish people and although the sum assessed on the hand of each individual was inconsiderable, the use for which it was designed, and the severity with which it was exacted, were considered as an intolerable grievance since the officers of the revenue extended their unjust claim to many persons who were strangers to the blood or religion of the jews. It was impossible that christians who had so often sheltered themselves under the shade of the synagogue, should now escape this rapacious persecution. Anxious as they were to avoid the slighest infection of idolatry, their conscience forbade them to contribute to the honour of that daemon who had assumed the character of the capitoline jupiter...Among the christians, who were brought before the tribunal of the emperor (Domitian), or as it seems more probable, before that of the procurator of Judaea, two persons are said to have appeared, distinguished by their extraction, which was more truly noble than of the greatest monarchs. These were the GRANDSONS OF ST JUDE THE APOSTLE, who himself was THE BROTHER OF JESUS... They finally confess their royal origin, and their near relation to the Messiah, but they disclaimed any temporal views and professed that his kingdom which they devoutly expected was purely of a spiritual and angelic nature...The grandsons of St Jude were dismissed with compassion and contempt (Eusebius iii,20; the story is taken from Hegesippus)] Abrantes From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 10 20:50:31 1996 Date: 10 Aug 96 16:50:31 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Myalba - Man bearing globe Message-Id: <960810205031_74024.3352_BHT155-2@CompuServe.COM> UY-y to the VOICE of the SILENCE when she writes that we are living on Myalba or hell, the lowest level in the universe. How can we accept this? Can we take her at her word? Some thoughts: We are on in space and in in time one of the lowest globes in one of the darkest cycles of manifestation and incarnation. Yet all the talk about the 7 levels, planes, globes, rounds, chains etc give us the occult or indirect awareness from information beyond our physical senses that our feet touch lowest matter and our head (symbolical) reaches to the sky of heaven, nirvana, sammadhi, kether, the ONE. The seven levels manifested in our body as seven bodies or types of awareness include: 1. sub organic and organic non-biological physical and chemical shell - frozen lowest mind locked in the subatomic, atomic and molecular structures - a Cosmos in-itself 2. energy or life body - vegetable body 3. emotional or animal response body - animal body 4. analytical mind for survival - practical extroverted sensual - simple human mind 5. higher mind - introverted and symbolic - logical mind 6. intuitive body really beyond the mind that can sense things from the highest manifested archetypal levels - archetypal mind 7. spiritual connection to the highest divinity that circulates and sustains all seven bodies including itself. - the unmanifest/manifest totality in multiplicity that is NO-thing only YES beyond contridiction but as contridiction to out limited unenlightened awareness. Upon enlightenment, afte seeking the key to the seven portals, we can no longer see it from below or even above but hold it in a tenuous awareness like a bubble about to burst and carry it carefully, oh so carefully yet it's circumfrence is everywhere and center nowhere. Thus we live in hell and can feel the accompanying states of : 1. physical pain and death 2. life weakness and disease 3. emotional pain of suffering, loss and sadness 4. frustration of planes no matter how well made 5. inability to synthesize adequately to create any real change in the world process qua world process, but only bring about very localized negentropy to small areas of the system (including our own lives) 6. The ability to attain blissful states of ecstatic awareness, but often at great cost and rarely for prolonged periods of time (this includes everything from heroin usage to tantric yoga. 7. absolute dependence of the ultimate Oneness but feeling apart somehow from it as our existential condition of being in a body with 7 levels. Thus we reach from the lowest hell through the mind to the highest awareness of heaven-like states and beyond to the intuition of the ONE. HPB's seven portals in the VOS gives many clues, I believe to the avid student to the purpose of being in seven bodies, but being able to travel the paths as in the Kabala, chakra and theosophical symbol systems. Yes our earth is hell, but not just hell, but a school for those souls encased in seven bodies, seeking freedom from the six lower world. HPB provides insights into the necessary key to turn the locks of the laya centers to travel and know for ourselves where and who we really are and why we are here. We seek a perfection on each of the levels. The illusive and illusory goal seems to be: 1. perfect health - eternal incarnation (Chopra fans live here) 2. perfect physical digestion and a state of vegetative bliss - (Vegans unite, we all need to be plants, some say) 3. agressive beautifull bodies in an orgy of eating and sex - animal heaven 4. a static state of life as we know it - Bougeoise paradise of the eternal family values 5. logical conclusion - unified field theory that explains everything in the universe in math equations (but why would we the universe, if we had the equations?) 6. A world of blissful dieties and a heaven with streets paved with gold, spitting water melon seed with the kids throughout eternity. 7. Unitive awareness - we have it all ready, but have it in a fractured incomplete form which is being revealed slowly, every so SLOWLY to humanity and sometime Quickly in flashes of enlightenment. I would suggest that the nirmankaya vestiture is necessary for the whole system before the return to oneness. As long as one sentient being tarries and procrastinates in hell, Jesus will have to descend and the Higher Self will look down as Aviteloskivara, the silent watcher in the ever living Banyan of the world process. Namaste Keith Price 88svatsky provides a key in the glossary to From eldon@theosophy.com Sun Aug 11 04:14:49 1996 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 21:14:49 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960811041449.00697efc@mail.imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: theosophical chat I just installed "Netscape Chat" (mentioned on the Netscape banner page when one logs onto the Web using Netscape). I found a theosophical chat line, and arranged to meet someone there in Iceland for a chat at 8:30 am (Pacific Time) Sunday. Anyone else interested in joining in? Host: davis.dat.net Port: 6667 Room: #Theosophy This is just an experiment. It'll give us an opportunity to polish the fine art of "one liners" to a new height! -- Eldon From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 10 21:26:50 1996 Date: 10 Aug 96 17:26:50 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Choosing our States - Free Will or Illusion Message-Id: <960810212650_74024.3352_BHT155-3@CompuServe.COM> As I study, HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE, some themes recur to me again from other parts of my spiritual search and study and ---life. We are taugth as children that if we are "good" we will go to heaven after death and if we are bad, we will go to hell. Although many adults say they reject such notions, they seem to be universal and archetypal in the sense that we are born with images of heaven or a golden age and the opposite state of seemingly endless pain. Stanislov Grof has given us new recent insights into these states as perinatal or the remeberance of the interuterine bliss and comfort, the contractions as hell during the birth process and oceanic light as emergence from the womb. The tunnel that is visualized in "life after life" near death experiences is possibly the womb with the physical world at the end as the light and voices of love or judgement as the doctors and nurses rattling around our mother. In the infant's unconscious are coded these states and are attached to later moral and religious idea. Almost all religions have hell like states. The Buddhist's have the hot and cold hells, the Mayans and native American traditions as well as the Western tradition from Greek, Roman and Jewish traditiions, have something resembling HELL although it is quite different from the Christian idea in details, but not in form of a kind of longing, painful, detached frustrated state of consciousness. Theosophy teaches that after death some people experience the hell like state of being attached to the earth and unable to fullfill their animal desires for pleasure. The shells remain on the astral plane in a type of limbo or bardo. This brings us to the Tibetan Book of the Dead idea's of the hell state appearing shortly before death as the peacful deities and states become wrathfull as the desire for incarnation increases. I would like to suggest that hell is indeed our globe earth, but experienced as the state of frustration, despair and pain in incarnation or while between incarnations. The tunnel of light, tunnel of love may or not be the physical womb, but as below so above so we may travel through so called worm holes or time tunnels to other man bearing globes sometime called lokas or heaven or hells. Yet the possiblity and even the probablity is that we are on seven globes RIGHT NOW and potentially at all times. We are on the physical globe on the earth, the life globe of biology, the emotional globe of our emotional reactions, the mental globe of planning and abstraction, the intuitive globe of wisdom and the atmic globe of unified Will, Love and WIsdom. Each globe has its own matter and density and organizing princinple. We embody them all and can choose unconsciously and consciously to activate the "matter-principles" of each globe for our selfish ends or sometimes to the unified ends of the world-process. It seem to me that Blavatsky was getting at some of this to some extent and much, much more. The seventh globe - principle is Will that moves all, contains all and enlivens all. The adjusting of the bodies leads to a spiritual reallignement. Still we have free choice withing the limits of our present incarnation. Yet we are given the Dharma or duty to allign our bodies in one way or another during incarnation. We can focus on the needs of one body or another and give into addiction or we can allign by controlling them and uniting them with a larger Will of the world-process. Perhaps a period of purity, renumciation and abstinence is necessary, yet at some point there must be action. To know, to dare, to will and be silent is the injunction. All the worlds have maya and attraction. We are in deep maya for sure. Namaste Keith Price From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 10 22:06:36 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:06:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608102206.AAA00727@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: goodbye James Jungkans JSY> but I would >>definatly state, based upon what I have seen on Theos-L, that you are not a >>Theosophist. LFD>Dear God Jungkans, Please allow Bishop Dr. Alan Baines to be a Theosophist. Amen. Liesel When I read James's posting to Alan (before my holiday) I was surprised to see the patronizing attitude expressed therein. That attitude is not very Theosophical IMO. From what I remember, Alan has expressed his wish to stop or suspend communication with James, which I can understand. May I suggest to James that it might be a blind spot in his attitude towards others to patronize them for deviating from standard Theosophical teachings? May I also submit that we can learn most from those who hold different opinions than those that a surface reading of Theosophy seem to support? Martin From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 10 22:06:33 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:06:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608102206.AAA00716@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Books in ASCII;reply to Konstantin Hi Konstantin, K> BTW, I have english texts of "Thoughtforms" and some articles by Sinnett (from a book "Occult essays", 1905) and CWL & AB in ASCII files. So i can send them to those who collects files like those for WWW sites. Well, I'm interested in having a look at this material. So, can you send me these files? BTW, I saw a scan of some thoughtforms in Mike Grenier's Theosophy help-file for MS-Windows. K>IMO, "Thoughtforms" is a nice source material for creating online Web-document. In that case, why don't you send an E-mail to Rene Mueller and ask him to put it online in his spiritweb archive? His address is: kiwi@spiritweb.org My personal idea about putting things online is that I need to have some relation to the material, through experience and understanding. Since I haven't read the material and have a limited amount of time to spend on such activities, I suggest that you yourself make the necessary effort to get it online (unless some other wants to do it, of course). But if you need just some incidental help doing that I might be able to help you a bit. Martin From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 10 22:06:39 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:06:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608102206.AAA00735@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re:Answering Greg and Martin Michael>Incidentally, I am of the opinion that "belief" implies an emotional attachment to a number of concepts. It holds the believer spell-bound and prevents him from moving forward. I would plead for a discrimination between blind belief and a reasoned belief. The latter is based on hypotheses, which can be tested in one's life experience and may lead to rejecting or reformulating of one or more of these hypotheses . You are probably aware of the fact that the materialistic view of life is also a (often) blind belief. People who say that they have no belief, also have a belief, but they don't realize it. That belief probably runs like this: I believe what my senses and brain-functions show me of this world. The pit here is that everybody attributes truth to his or her filtered sense-impressions (perception of the world) and thinks that it is reality itself which is perceived.. Michael>I was evicted in 1956 from the Pasadena (James A.Long) Theosophical Society for posting a manifest to the Delegates of the National Sections. It is 8 pages long and heralds our presentday discussions. It beseeches the leadership to return to the original aims of the Theosophical Society and subject HPB's contributions to a further scrutiny. It was never answered and all our Theosophical "friends" gave us a cold shoulder. It made me see what all these high sounding "truths" were worth really. Aren't you confounding "truths" with your Theosophical friends' *perceived* "truths"? That's an enormous difference and I would like to distinguish between these two. Many years later it made me conceive my homepage: "On the psychology of spiritual movements" (http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html), although that is not aimed at the TS. I've read it and it is a good piece of work IMO. KARMA. What I wrote 12th July did not differ much from my latest contribution. Yet, herewith my original piece: "I feel that we are too much tied up in our thinking to a supposedly universal law of justice. Usually it is applied to human beings, whereas one wonders about justice towards animals whose life, even in natural surroundings is one of suffering (and delight) and there is faint hope that they will be compensated, unless it is in the hereafter. To me Karma implies that man's actions and thought ties him to a quality of mental and spiritual environment, to a mechanism of mind. I like that definition and have used this idea implicitly (sometimes explicitly) in an article of mine, although not using precisely these words. Michael> Each action affirms that status quo or may push him over a threshold towards another state he cannot free himself from. This is true in my experience. Sometimes we cross a "ring-pass-not", entering a new sphere of thought and action. Michael>The bad Karma is the suffering to become released from that plane, once one feels its prison-like structure. It means creating a new mental/spiritual condition laboriously, always in danger of falling, or being held back. It requires patience, intent, perseverance AND can hardly be undertaken unless there is some inner stimulation. It may be a two-way process: a) the aspiration and perseverance of the individual and b) the help from within, by beings from Spiritual spheres. Michael>In non-worldly conditions it is quality of mind that counts, that makes oneself staying atuned to spheres of equal intensity. Quality of mind counts also in worldly conditions. The business people and non-profit organizations are beginning to understand that spiritual management (human resources) is an important factor nowadays. Michael> Karma is the way of suffering to reach it. Good Karma is freewheeling on what one has reached. But the state of Grace is always a balance on the proverbial razor's edge." Paul commented that I should see "law' as G.de P. did. However, we are concerned with what the originator of the Theosophical system HPB wrote:"We believe firmly in what we call the "law of retribution', and in the absolute justice and wisdom guiding this Law, or Karma" (Key to Theosophy p.110) Paul commented that? I think I have made that comment. But I didn't use the terms "you should". G de P's view appeals to me in this respect. You seem to take Blavatsky's words literally, which I don't do. Blavatsky says something more interesting for me in the Key to Theosophy, where she states that it is not so much the personality that is responsible for its action as the being behind the personality (the originator of the personality). That makes sense to me. You can't blame a hungry child in a Third World country for its condition. That would be a preposterous idea IMO! I believe in the notion of skandhas, which seem necessary to explain the formation of character (at birth a baby already has its own character, which can be observed if you take a close look, tune in to the baby's soul). The skandhas have everything to do with karma, with the thoughtpattern, emotional pattern etc. of a being. Michael>If Theosophists wish to adhere to the original enquiring spirit of before they should be prepared to question and even throw overboard concepts that have become dogma's like Karma and reincarnation. Well, maybe these concepts are not being understood? Michael>They should also direct far more their attention to Spiritism, because in my opinion, it is far more tied up with Theosophy and its communicators "The Masters" than they are prepared to accept. They should not embrace it, though, but seek for clues for instance in comparing teachings of the Mahatma's with similar communications from other sources of channeling and ask themselves what is the true nature of this phenomenon and how to access it (see my page The presence phenomenon: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/presence.html) It can be very enriching to one's understanding to study other teachings, channeled or not. Michael>An enquiring mind should be prepared to lay all is pet-theories on the block, including the concepts of soul, monad, atman, budhi, manas etc. All of this is pure speculation, and leads one away from the real contact with the spiritual. These concepts are just pointers to deeper layers within the human being. That's all. Michael> Philosophizing with the intellect on matters spiritual may become an escape. I am quite sure that if we see in the end backwards we shall perceive that we missed the point completely. This is a well-known (?) trap. It can be fruitful to one's understanding to study T/theosophy, but it is not a substitute for experience. Jerry Schueler quoted Jung saying: Theosophy is lazy thinking. Well, it needn't be so, of course, but it sometimes or maybe more often turns out that way. It is very convenient to think that one knows all when one has only *read about* things. Michael>Finally, I owe a lot to the teachings I question now and I have a high regard of Theosophists. I forgot whether Paul or Chuck wrote this, but I agree wholeheartedly: 5. Theosophy: A Religion or a Philosophy The claim that Theosophy is not a religion creates two problems. First, it "blurs the distinction between knowledge and faith. Theosophy attempts to appear as reason, but its central claims are not fact but belief. The existence of the Masters, [ahem] karma, reincarnation, human brotherhood-- all are religious conceptions that elicit faith but are not subject to proof or disproof. I see these concepts as hypotheses which can be tested in one's life, like I said before. Theosophy is a spiritual philosophy of life for me and each of its contentions can be tested, not by scientific methods (such as these are now) but in and by one's own consciousness and that is one aspect of 'treading the Path', which one can see as process-theosophy. When we blindly belief the tenets, then it has become a religion for us. Martin From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 10 22:33:45 1996 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 18:33:45 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608102340.TAA12457@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: god speaks & other flapdoodles > What I personally hope >we shall be able to do is the celebrate our differences, to find joy in the >diversity" > > > In fellowship > > James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. > Dear James Scott Yungkans, If you really mean the above, if you really find joy in diversity, please don't tell other people on this list anymore that they're not Theosophists. We have all kinds, and they all lay claim to that title, whether you (or I) agree with them or not. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 00:08:13 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 01:08:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Nazarenes and Ocean Mime-Version: 1.0 "The Nazarenes" (Part Two) is now available from my homepage, as is also a zipped version of "The Ocean of Theosophy" (Theosophical Writings). Please acknowledge visits. :-) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 10 20:46:33 1996 Date: 10 Aug 96 16:46:33 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Appling after listening to VOS Message-Id: <960810204632_74024.3352_BHT155-1@CompuServe.COM> > > Keith > > In the QUEST edition of VOS there is an introduction by Boris De Zirkoff. In it > he relates some of the history surrounding its production including: > > "help{ing] students to transform their thought into action, their aspirtations > into compassionate deeds". > > > > >RAMDOSS: The very interesting point that I noticed is that this is the only time that any reference was made in any literature about any material being translated from a dravidian language. Also I see the HPB's emphasis on treatises on morals, and moral principles of the dravidian and mongolian mystics. The implication as I see it, is perhaps the morals and moral principles when applied by an individual in his/her day to day living, there is a transformation in his/her attitudes and approaches to life and his/her relationships to other human beings. A further extrapolation may lead us to the First Object - practical Universal Brotherhood in action. Just a thought. Keith: I think (IMHO) it is more than a thought, but the exact point - practical spirituality. I have confessed all about my "impure" lifestyle, but perhaps he that is without karmic impurity should throw the first cyber-stone. I feel a need TO APPLY occult spiritual principles in my life. The esteric section used to provide this function and may still do, but they are of course ESOTRIC, in the dark closet, so to speak. Can anybody speak for the ES in an appropriate exoteric way, of course. I think the VOS was written for students in the original forerunner of the ES. History buffs can help here maybe. Yes, this is here work on doing, rather than thinking - or thinking about doing and thinking about thinking about doing etc and speculating about ............... Some one has pointed about rather strongly, that the First Objective states a NUCLEUS of universal brotherhood. Thus an elitism may be inferred that many are called, but few are chosen seem to apply. That a certain worthiness for spiritual advancesment is paid in the form of humility to the Master's will. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 10 20:50:31 1996 Date: 10 Aug 96 16:50:31 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Myalba - Man bearing globe Message-Id: <960810205031_74024.3352_BHT155-2@CompuServe.COM> UY-y to the VOICE of the SILENCE when she writes that we are living on Myalba or hell, the lowest level in the universe. How can we accept this? Can we take her at her word? Some thoughts: We are on in space and in in time one of the lowest globes in one of the darkest cycles of manifestation and incarnation. Yet all the talk about the 7 levels, planes, globes, rounds, chains etc give us the occult or indirect awareness from information beyond our physical senses that our feet touch lowest matter and our head (symbolical) reaches to the sky of heaven, nirvana, sammadhi, kether, the ONE. The seven levels manifested in our body as seven bodies or types of awareness include: 1. sub organic and organic non-biological physical and chemical shell - frozen lowest mind locked in the subatomic, atomic and molecular structures - a Cosmos in-itself 2. energy or life body - vegetable body 3. emotional or animal response body - animal body 4. analytical mind for survival - practical extroverted sensual - simple human mind 5. higher mind - introverted and symbolic - logical mind 6. intuitive body really beyond the mind that can sense things from the highest manifested archetypal levels - archetypal mind 7. spiritual connection to the highest divinity that circulates and sustains all seven bodies including itself. - the unmanifest/manifest totality in multiplicity that is NO-thing only YES beyond contridiction but as contridiction to out limited unenlightened awareness. Upon enlightenment, afte seeking the key to the seven portals, we can no longer see it from below or even above but hold it in a tenuous awareness like a bubble about to burst and carry it carefully, oh so carefully yet it's circumfrence is everywhere and center nowhere. Thus we live in hell and can feel the accompanying states of : 1. physical pain and death 2. life weakness and disease 3. emotional pain of suffering, loss and sadness 4. frustration of planes no matter how well made 5. inability to synthesize adequately to create any real change in the world process qua world process, but only bring about very localized negentropy to small areas of the system (including our own lives) 6. The ability to attain blissful states of ecstatic awareness, but often at great cost and rarely for prolonged periods of time (this includes everything from heroin usage to tantric yoga. 7. absolute dependence of the ultimate Oneness but feeling apart somehow from it as our existential condition of being in a body with 7 levels. Thus we reach from the lowest hell through the mind to the highest awareness of heaven-like states and beyond to the intuition of the ONE. HPB's seven portals in the VOS gives many clues, I believe to the avid student to the purpose of being in seven bodies, but being able to travel the paths as in the Kabala, chakra and theosophical symbol systems. Yes our earth is hell, but not just hell, but a school for those souls encased in seven bodies, seeking freedom from the six lower world. HPB provides insights into the necessary key to turn the locks of the laya centers to travel and know for ourselves where and who we really are and why we are here. We seek a perfection on each of the levels. The illusive and illusory goal seems to be: 1. perfect health - eternal incarnation (Chopra fans live here) 2. perfect physical digestion and a state of vegetative bliss - (Vegans unite, we all need to be plants, some say) 3. agressive beautifull bodies in an orgy of eating and sex - animal heaven 4. a static state of life as we know it - Bougeoise paradise of the eternal family values 5. logical conclusion - unified field theory that explains everything in the universe in math equations (but why would we the universe, if we had the equations?) 6. A world of blissful dieties and a heaven with streets paved with gold, spitting water melon seed with the kids throughout eternity. 7. Unitive awareness - we have it all ready, but have it in a fractured incomplete form which is being revealed slowly, every so SLOWLY to humanity and sometime Quickly in flashes of enlightenment. I would suggest that the nirmankaya vestiture is necessary for the whole system before the return to oneness. As long as one sentient being tarries and procrastinates in hell, Jesus will have to descend and the Higher Self will look down as Aviteloskivara, the silent watcher in the ever living Banyan of the world process. Namaste Keith Price 88svatsky provides a key in the glossary to From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 10 21:26:50 1996 Date: 10 Aug 96 17:26:50 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Choosing our States - Free Will or Illusion Message-Id: <960810212650_74024.3352_BHT155-3@CompuServe.COM> As I study, HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE, some themes recur to me again from other parts of my spiritual search and study and ---life. We are taugth as children that if we are "good" we will go to heaven after death and if we are bad, we will go to hell. Although many adults say they reject such notions, they seem to be universal and archetypal in the sense that we are born with images of heaven or a golden age and the opposite state of seemingly endless pain. Stanislov Grof has given us new recent insights into these states as perinatal or the remeberance of the interuterine bliss and comfort, the contractions as hell during the birth process and oceanic light as emergence from the womb. The tunnel that is visualized in "life after life" near death experiences is possibly the womb with the physical world at the end as the light and voices of love or judgement as the doctors and nurses rattling around our mother. In the infant's unconscious are coded these states and are attached to later moral and religious idea. Almost all religions have hell like states. The Buddhist's have the hot and cold hells, the Mayans and native American traditions as well as the Western tradition from Greek, Roman and Jewish traditiions, have something resembling HELL although it is quite different from the Christian idea in details, but not in form of a kind of longing, painful, detached frustrated state of consciousness. Theosophy teaches that after death some people experience the hell like state of being attached to the earth and unable to fullfill their animal desires for pleasure. The shells remain on the astral plane in a type of limbo or bardo. This brings us to the Tibetan Book of the Dead idea's of the hell state appearing shortly before death as the peacful deities and states become wrathfull as the desire for incarnation increases. I would like to suggest that hell is indeed our globe earth, but experienced as the state of frustration, despair and pain in incarnation or while between incarnations. The tunnel of light, tunnel of love may or not be the physical womb, but as below so above so we may travel through so called worm holes or time tunnels to other man bearing globes sometime called lokas or heaven or hells. Yet the possiblity and even the probablity is that we are on seven globes RIGHT NOW and potentially at all times. We are on the physical globe on the earth, the life globe of biology, the emotional globe of our emotional reactions, the mental globe of planning and abstraction, the intuitive globe of wisdom and the atmic globe of unified Will, Love and WIsdom. Each globe has its own matter and density and organizing princinple. We embody them all and can choose unconsciously and consciously to activate the "matter-principles" of each globe for our selfish ends or sometimes to the unified ends of the world-process. It seem to me that Blavatsky was getting at some of this to some extent and much, much more. The seventh globe - principle is Will that moves all, contains all and enlivens all. The adjusting of the bodies leads to a spiritual reallignement. Still we have free choice withing the limits of our present incarnation. Yet we are given the Dharma or duty to allign our bodies in one way or another during incarnation. We can focus on the needs of one body or another and give into addiction or we can allign by controlling them and uniting them with a larger Will of the world-process. Perhaps a period of purity, renumciation and abstinence is necessary, yet at some point there must be action. To know, to dare, to will and be silent is the injunction. All the worlds have maya and attraction. We are in deep maya for sure. Namaste Keith Price From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 10 23:46:40 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:46:40 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <2zxpDIAg9RDyEwcx@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: We are in deep maya, or S---. In-Reply-To: <960810212650_74024.3352_BHT155-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960810212650_74024.3352_BHT155-3@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >I would like to suggest that hell is indeed our globe earth Of course it is (IMO). Listen to, read or watch the news, it's all there, like a painting by Hieronymous Bosch ... Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 10 23:43:32 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:43:32 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Choosing our States - Free Will or Illusion In-Reply-To: <960810212650_74024.3352_BHT155-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960810212650_74024.3352_BHT155-3@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes (quoting another source): >The >tunnel that is visualized in "life after life" near death experiences is >possibly the womb with the physical world at the end as the light and voices of >love or judgement as the doctors and nurses rattling around our mother. In the >infant's unconscious are coded these states and are attached to later moral and >religious idea. Nice try, but not all near death experiences follow this pattern. I have had three, and not one of them had a tunnel in it ... Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 10 23:41:27 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:41:27 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Elitism In-Reply-To: <960810204632_74024.3352_BHT155-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960810204632_74024.3352_BHT155-1@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >Some one has pointed about rather strongly, that the First Objective states a >NUCLEUS of universal brotherhood. Thus an elitism may be inferred that many are >called, but few are chosen seem to apply. Off your original topic, Keith, but worth following up I think. This aspect of 1st Object has bothered me for some time, and it has also transferred itself to the TI objectives. The better approach, IMHO, would have been to form *nuclei* rather than a single nucleus, in either version. Thus there could be any number of (say) TI "nuclear" families all part of the larger whole, and all interconnected through TI (or TSA, or whatever). Then Lodges, branches, meetings, whatever they are called or however constructed, would be independent in truth, and not only in name ... This could be a topic for TI-L - anyone care to follow up there? (cc. to same). Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 11 06:40:59 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 02:40:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960811024059_596822859@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Publishing Books Doss, Actually, the contrary is true. Copyright will probably become totally obsolete. There are tons of book-length things out on the net right now. It has reached the point where I have to be careful not to download more than my hard-drive can handle. Chuck From pmmkien@main.com Sun Aug 11 15:02:53 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 10:02:53 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608111454.JAA04219@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Did Jesus Exist .... The text that Abarantes sent written by Haygin ben Yehoshua, that summarizes the Jewish arguments against the historicity of the Christian Jesus raises some interesting thoughts re. the HBP / Meade thesis that Jesus lived 100 years earlier. 1. The Haygin ben Yehoshua text is a typical Jewish smear job on Christianiity. It's clear that the author has an axe to grind - in fact he says as much. 2. This is a continuation of the smear job dating back to 200 AD when the Gemara and Tosefta were first written. 3. The fact that the Jews were intent on "smearing" the character of Jesus (declaring he was a sorcerer of illegitemate birth etc..) indicates that they ACCEPTED that he did exist. He may have been an unsavory character but his existence was not questioned by the Jews of that time. In fact, Haygin ben Yehoshua suggests that Jesus was modeled after Yehuda of Gallilee, executed 6 AD. I believe that had the character been a total fiction, or modeled after someone who lived 100 years earlier (HPB/Meade) the smear job would have been much easier - in fact irresistable ("Those @#$% Christians totally invented this guy the Christ -- and he never even existed.."). The fact that this was not raised and that the Jews intent on smearing the character of Jesus accepted that Jesus did live around the early part of the first century AD - has to be taken seriously. Paul K. From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Aug 11 21:40:23 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:40:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Publishing Books In-Reply-To: <960811024059_596822859@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: I would love to see this happen. If copyright becomes obsolete, we need to see how it impacts writers. Also many book publishers may have to move away from printed material. In a way, in the on line data base business this is already happening due to the cd roms. Encyclopaedia Brittanica is one of those affected. Nice to watch radical changes in the market. ..MK Ramadoss On Sun, 11 Aug 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Doss, > Actually, the contrary is true. Copyright will probably become totally > obsolete. > There are tons of book-length things out on the net right now. It has > reached the point where I have to be careful not to download more than my > hard-drive can handle. > > Chuck > From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sun Aug 11 23:05:54 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:05:54 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608112305.AA22365@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Historic Jesus (Abrantes, Alan) Hi Abrantes, and Alan Abrantes: >It's clear to me that Marcion, have a different edition of >gospel of Luke. It's clear also that Marcion didn't accept the >Jesus in the flesh. Blavastsky is correct here. > >So you recognices that Marcion accepted some parts from from >Luke's gospel (used by the church) as authentical. And as Dr. >Lardner explains, such parts INCLUDE chapters 23 and chapter 3:1 >that CLEARLY refers to Pilate. So, even thought Marcion rejects >Jesus in flesh, and had opinions vastly different from that held >by the church, Marcion accepts that Jesus lived under Pilate, >and then rejects Toldoth at THIS POINT. Do you agree? JHE No. If Marcion did not accept Jesus in the flesh, as we have agreed, then why would a historical Jesus have any relevance to Marcion one way or the other? I will take yours and Dr. Lardner's word for it that Marcion's version of Luke included chapters 23 (the trial) and chapter 3:1. I would then ask, what did those verses mean to Marcion? What was his commentary concerning those verses? The trial and crucifixion stories were important to the Gnostics--not because of any historical considerations, but because of their symbolic significance. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that Marcion accepted the existence of an historical Jesus who lived at the time of Pilate. How does this help your argument that Jesus lived at such a time? Further, you argue that Marcion rejected the Toldoth. What evidence is there that Marcion even heard of the Toldoth? How can someone "reject" something they know nothing about? JHE >I'm having a lot a problems with your logic and the conclusions >you are deriving from the above string of information. How does >your conclusion that Luke "is an orthodox" address HPB's >argument that the historical Jesus lived in 100 B.C.? Are you >implying that Luke had some special knowledge of Jesus, or that >he belonged to a Syrian group that had special knowledge of >Jesus? Further, are you implying that the Gospel of Luke was >written by the apostle Luke, and/or represents the apostle >Luke's ideas? I hope you don't hold this belief. Abrantes: >I cited quotation from Eusebius, Irenaeus, and a prologue found >at church of Rome 180AD (remember that as in a previus e-mail >we already conclude that gnostics description given by Iraenaeus >are in accordance with the recent discoveries in Nag-Hammadi). JHE I think we agreed that the Nag Hammadi scholars were surprised as to the degree of accuracy that the early church fathers represented Gnostic doctrines. To what degree they are "in accordance" is another matter--but generally the early church fathers got high marks. Abrantes >All these references comes from ortodoxy, so I conclude that >Luke had good relations with ortodoxy. All this references >states that Luke was disciple of Paul and wrote the gospel. And >as Luke chapter 23 talk about Pilate, these references can be >used to confirm the hypothese that Jesus lived under Pilate. JHE As I understand it, your argument is this: You say that Luke was a disciple of Paul, who was orthodox, therefore Luke had "good relations with orthodoxy"; that Luke "wrote the Gospel" [of Luke]; Luke talks about Pilate; therefore Jesus lived under Pilate. Your logic would be solid if Paul had written the Epistles and Luke the Gospel of Luke, or at least that the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke represent the ideas of their respective name sakes. But here lies the great flaw: 1. Early in this discussion, I mentioned that only two of the fourteen epistles of Paul are generally accepted to be genuine. Neither of those two place Jesus in an historical setting, but rather treat Jesus in much the same style as the Gnostics--i.e. as an abstraction. I realize that you cited a mention of Pilate in 1Tim. in an attempt to prove that Paul wrote of an historical Jesus, but 1Tim is one of the Epistles whose genuineness is most definitely rejected, and is thought to have been written not by Paul, but by someone who also wrote the Epistle of Titus. 2. Paul only knew Jesus though visions. He never met an historical Jesus. Therefore his knowledge of such a Jesus would have been second hand or through visions. Bible students have for centuries been disturbed by the lack of historical information about Jesus in the writings of Paul. In fact, the only place where any exist at all, are in the Epistles known to have NOT been written by Paul. 3. I mentioned earlier that it is generally accepted that the Gospels are in fact anonymous. The titles presently used: e.g. "According to Luke" are not part of the original manuscripts. The naming of the gospels seems to have begun with Papias in 140, but was not generally used, formalized or canonized until about 180 with Irenaeus, who also limited the number of acceptable gospels to the four we have today. 4. It is also now generally agreed that the Gospels evolved from earlier documents, now lost. These lost documents are believed to have been the sayings of a "Jesus" with no historical context- -like the rejected Gospel of Thomas. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke represents the ideas of the author attributed to it, but rather is another compilation from older documents now lost. So, based upon current evidence and thinking, the genuine Epistles of Paul have no references to an historical Jesus, and the Gospel of Luke was not written by Luke, but was a compilation of many documents and/or stories. Therefore, these Gospels and Epistles are not reliable evidence to confirm the historical existence of a biblical Jesus under Pilate. Abrantes: >The question of NT's authenticity is not the point here. What we >have to understand is that the gospels and pauline epistles >follow the original doctrines of the majority party of the >church (ortodoxy), and follows the original belief that Jesus >lived under Pilate. They are not forgeries or something else >(even though there is some interpolations as 1 John 5:7 >cited by HPB at BOOK III chapter IV,161 - start 153, end 185). JHE "The question of NT's authenticity is not the point here" (???!!!). I don't follow you. If you wish to use the NT as proof of the historicity of Jesus living under Pilate, then it seems to me that the NT's authenticity is very much the point. Abrantes: >Surely others christians doctrines (such as gnosticism and >docetism) were omitted from gospels. If quotations about Pilate >in gospels were interpolations it would be interesting to >investigate if there is some contradiction between ancient greek >manuscripts about such passages. A good work about it is >written by K.Alland, M.Black, C.M.Martini, Bruce Metzger - The >greek new Testament. JHE I have seen works on this subject. Yes, there are some variations in the texts, but these studies miss the point we are concerned with here--i.e. the source of these texts. It is agreed (as you also pointed out) that these Greek texts were evolved from earlier texts that are no longer extant. Since these earlier texts are lost, we obviously have a problem tracing the sources behind our present canonized texts. This is why there is so much current interest in the Nag Hammadi texts-- particularly with the Gospel of Thomas. Though the text itself is no older than the oldest Greek texts, it does appear to more in conformity with the more primitive texts that are lost. Therefore, a more faithful copy of the older texts. Abrantes: >Church belief that evangelists wrote theirs gosples >independently, using the oral tradition and some manuscripts >that comes from the early christians communities (Catechism 126, >Dei Verbum19) There are also others theories about it. Robert Bulltmann published - History of the synoptic tradition - >an analysis of the traditional material used by the evangelists >Matthew, Mark and Luke and an attempt to throw its history in >the tradition of the church prior to their use of it> (Enc. >Britannica Vol2,629) He shown that the tradition consisted of numerous small, self-contained units >(single sayings, parables, debates, anecdotes and miracles >stories) originally WITHOUT any relation to each other and >mostly withou any interest in dates, places or historical >circumstances. It was the gospel writers (or some earlier >collectors) who first joined these individual pieces >together...Thus with regard to the gospels it has to be >considerated that their tradition was found and collected >from THE POINT OF VIEW O THE FAITH OF THE POST_EASTER CHURCH, >under the influence of its ideas and ways of thought> >(Britannica Vol22,337). JHE I generally agree with the above. I would add that during this process of piecing together these "sayings," "parables" etc. written "without any interest in dates" would be the time that transitional material (such as historical references, genealogies, virgin births etc.) were introduced in order to give the stories a continuity, an historical setting, and to make them appear to fulfill prophecy. JHE >In my last posting to you, I suggested that our inquiry might be >more fruitful if we were to look at the teachings of the Ophite >sect and investigate the Syrian heresies. According to >my reading of HPB, she is suggesting that elements of the >primitive Church and ties to the historical Jesus may be found >here. Abrantes >I am looking for such information. If I will have some success, >I will write. But I think that is interesting ALSO investigate >about christians apostolic fathers, that you already admitted >that have a limited knowledge about them. JHE I agree that the apostolic fathers' writings are interesting, and are helpful. But I don't see how citing the beliefs of fathers who were writing after the period the Gospels had been formalized can be used as proof of the historicity of the Biblical Jesus, therefore disproving HPB's thesis. I already raised the point that the historicity of the Gospels themselves are very much in doubt when critically examined. Yes, I mentioned that I have not read Adv. Marcion, nor am I inclined to involve myself in this text at this time. To be more precise, I have not read from cover to cover all ten volumes of my set of the ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, nor do I expect to do so in my lifetime. But I have read portions of it, and have a general feel for the material. Truthfully, I am more interested in learning more about the Ophite sect and the Syrian Heresies. There are areas where my knowledge is much more limited. Abrantes: >Have you already think that HPB, may be wrong in some points >here? JHE None that you have pointed out so far. Rather, HPB's arguments appear to be surprisingly current. Abrantes: >In this e-mail another argument that show that we can not say >that Jesus lived one century before, because at time of romam >emperor Domitian (reigned during 81-96), two grandsons of St >Jude (the brother of Jesus) were presented before emperor, and >so it is impossible to admit that Jesus lived 1 B.C. Abrantes' Quote: [snip]...Among the christians, who were brought before the tribunal of the emperor (Domitian), or as it seems more probable, before that of the procurator of Judaea, two persons are said to have appeared, distinguished by their extraction, which was more truly noble than of the greatest monarchs. These were the GRANDSONS OF ST JUDE THE APOSTLE, who himself was THE BROTHER OF JESUS... They finally confess their royal origin, and their near relation to the Messiah, but they disclaimed any temporal views and professed that his kingdom which they devoutly expected was purely of a spiritual and angelic nature...The grandsons of St Jude were dismissed with compassion and contempt (Eusebius iii,20; the story is taken from Hegesippus)] JHE Too bad the writings of Hegesippus (abt. 180 A.D.) are lost except for fragments preserved as quotes in other writings. This fact makes it all the more difficult to evaluate whether Hegesippus is drawing from legend here, or from some unknown Roman record. As for the key phrase, "the brother of Jesus", the church has gotten a lot of mileage from this. In the original Greek has two equally possible meanings: "brother" as in a familial relation, and "brother" as in a fraternal affiliation. Therefore, the Jude spoken of here could have been telling the tribunal that he was Jesus' brother, or a follow in Jesus. Typical of early christian writiers, the first meaning is always assumed, and the story was written accordingly. JHE: >>Even the earliest Toldoth story fragments only dates to the >>13th century, though Tertullian refers to the main elements of >>it, thus showing that this story must date at least to the >>second century. Abrantes: >Tertullian? Where? > >Abrantes JHE I gather from Paul K's remarks on the Toldoth commentary that this question was already covered, and these references cited--so your question is already answered. JHE (to Alan Bain) >I do remember that we have learned that first century Judaism >was a chaotic mess with lots of infighting going on. Alan: >Oh indeed! Prof. Jacob Neusner (Formerly of Brown University, RI >but now somewhere else) makes it clear that there were many >"Judaisms" at the time, as he puts it! > >In my "The Nazarenes" (in a section not yet on my homepage) I >take a look at this. JHE I would love to read this material, but alas I'm not setup for WWW. Can you upload it to me? >>Alan Bain wrote: >>>[Aside to Jerry - have you read "The Teaching of Addai" - ? >> >> >>JHE >>Eusebius' translation? Well, I find the story hard to accept, >>and considering the late date of the text, I would be inclined >>to believe that it is a fabrication. > >I was thinking of a more recent translation by (I think) George >Howard which was a Scholars Press dissertation series >publication, and a new translation from the Aramaic text, but I >went straight to the place on the shelf where it wasn't, as we >often do :-) > >My own view is that it is a fabrication built upon a genuine >oral (and very much shorter) tradition belonging the the church >in Edessa. JHE >> But it does give some insight and raises questions. First; >>the early Syrians' stress upon Jesus as a healer. I think the >>emphasis on this aspect has been lost in modern society. >>Second; though the document is certainly more of a devotional >>piece than real history, it raises the question of the >>existence of early Christian activity in Syria. HPB seems to >>suggest that a lot was indeed going on there in the first >>century and that it was closer to the teachings of the >>historical Jesus. But where are the texts? Certainly the >>church never preserved them, and James Hastings shows only >>later date material. More likely the documents will be among >>material that have been labeled "Jewish Gnosticism." Any ideas? Alan Bain: >Bearing in mind my view that the earliest church was still part >of the general "Judaic" or Israelite religion, it seems to me >(and others, of late, so I have heard) that we may need to look >not for avowedly "Christian" texts, but among "Jewish" material >of the period either side of the supposed Jesus date. > >In particular, I am drawn to some of the "seven heavens" >material, Syriac "Psalms of Solomon" - that sort of thing. Much >of the former is to be found in ~The Apocryphal Old Testament~ >[Oxford, ed. Sparks]. Cf. Paul on the "Third heaven" in 2 >Corinthians ... > >There are a couple of ideas. Any thoughts? JHE I agree that the Jewish material of the period is the logical place to search. But what relevant material survived? I'm still waiting with anticipation for the publication of the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. My own teacher, had gathered a tremendous amount of research material connecting Judaism to Indian Buddhism, and believed that Christianity evolved from this mix. She had some very rare material on the subject. Sadly, she was reluctant to discuss her findings at the time for fear of being "scooped." She died about fifteen years ago and I recovered only scattered notes concerning her thesis. The rest of her research probably does not exist any longer :-( I don't know the Syric material at all and would be very interested in learning more about it. Best Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 14:30:20 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 15:30:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Publishing Books In-Reply-To: <960811024059_596822859@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960811024059_596822859@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Doss, >Actually, the contrary is true. Copyright will probably become totally >obsolete. >There are tons of book-length things out on the net right now. It has >reached the point where I have to be careful not to download more than my >hard-drive can handle. > >Chuck I was recently fortunate to obtain an IOMEGA ZIP drive. This connects to the parallel port and takes 100MB disks at around $20 each. There is a bypass connection for your printer. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 12 00:13:33 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:13:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <1DDB6AAtcnDyEweJ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Did Jesus Exist .... In-Reply-To: <199608111454.JAA04219@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608111454.JAA04219@main.com>, "Paul M.M. Kieniewicz" writes >I believe that had the character been a total fiction, or modeled after >someone who lived 100 years earlier (HPB/Meade) the smear job would have >been much easier - in fact irresistable ("Those @#$% Christians totally >invented this guy the Christ -- and he never even existed.."). The fact that >this was not raised and that the Jews intent on smearing the character of >Jesus accepted that Jesus did live around the early part of the first >century AD - has to be taken seriously. > >Paul K. I would amend this to say that *A* Jesus existed around this time, otherwise I agree with what you say. Whether of course this Jesus or any other Jesus did or said *all* of the things attributed to him is another matter ... Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From theos@sure.net Mon Aug 12 02:58:18 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 19:58:18 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608120258.TAA22886@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: "God" speaks & other flapdoodle It seems as though I may never be done with this.... Martin writes: > May I suggest to James that it might be a blind spot in his attitude towards > others... for deviating from standard Theosophical teachings? In answer, to quote from my last post (where I quoted HPB): > The Society's members represent the most > varied nationalities and races, and were born and educated in the most > dissimilar creeds...Some believe in one thing, others in another. Some > incline tward the ancient magic, or secret wisdom that was taught in the > sancuaries, which was the very opposite of supernaturalism or diabolism; > others in modern spiritualism [Spiritism], or intercourse with spirits of > the dead; still others in mesmerism... This is my view, which does not force 'Standard Theosophical Teachings' on anyone (albeit my philosophy embodies much of what is defined as such.) However, I do tend to much less tollerant (albeit in error at times) with those individuals that do not allow "essential features of their religious belief [or philosophy]" to be examined. I do personally consider refusing to discuss one's system, while offering to sell the contents of it, as somewhat patronizing, wouldn't you. A blind spot, NO. An intollerance, perhaps. Frustration over a lack of exchange, definatly. But I think a better approach ON BOTH SIDES would have aleviated much of this, don't you think? Maybe if I and Alan were to shake hands.... Martin states: > May I also submit that we can learn most from those who hold different > opinions than those that a surface reading of Theosophy seem to support? Absolutly! That's the reason for the Second Object. And, as I quoted: > Of...bigoted sectarians of any religion [or philosophy]... the > bigoted sectarian, fenced in, as he is, with a creed upon every paling is > written the warning, >> "'No Thoroughfare,' can neither come out of >>[anyones] enclosure to join the Theosophical Society, nor, if he could, has >>[the Society] room for one whose very religion [or philosophy] forbids >>examination. The very root idea of the Society is FREE and FEARLESS >>investigation." This would possibly include the "Fundamental" Theosophist, who demands that everything must fit into HIS/HER model of the universe, don't you think? I do not think this way, but rather try to glean from others what they have to offer. Therefore, please do not misinperpet by attempts at drawing Mr. Bain into a discussion on his area of philosophy. Rather, see frustration for what it is, and not what you interpret it for. As far the recognition of Alan as a Theosphist, which refers to a statement that I made in a PERSONAL E-mail directed to Alan ONLY (and that he chose to place into the public forum for PERSONAL ENDS), I will point to several of MY statments, albeit overlooked: > based upon what I have seen on Theos-L...tell me where I am mistaken. This was an attempt to adjust my view of Alan, if he thought I was in error. Rather than choosing to reply and point out my error (If there is one), Alan chose to change a private discussion into a public forum for ridicule. Not only is this self-serving, but this was definatly against the "Rules" that HPB had established for her "Esoteric Section" Is Mssr. Bain so far above the students of HPB that he may do this with impunity? > If your views/actions/beliefs are different...I leave it to you to demonstrate it. Mssr. Bain, by posting a personal E-mail in which I made statements that I definatly would NOT make in public and would not make to anyone other than Mssr. Bain confirmed my statements rather than demonstrating any difference from what I had stated. I still await any example from Mr. Bain that is any different from my previous observations (I.E. an open conversation on HIS philosophy/viewpoints.) I will state here publicly, in answer to Liesel who says "please don't tell other people on this list anymore that they're not Theosophists", that my statement, in PRIVATE and to Alan ONLY, expressed an personal opinion I had developed over the course of a dialogue. I was attempting to resolve the problem as a theosophist would, honesty and PRIVATELY! Alan's choice to make personal coments into public declarations were his alone and amounted to a "derogatory or slanderous statement made against a fellow theosophist in the presence of [other] member[s]." As liesel says, "We have all kinds, and they all lay claim to that title..." Perhaps a definition for conduct should be defined AND ADHERED TO for anyone making such a claim. HPB's definition of 1879 might be a good starting point. Should we perhaps form such a definition here on Theos-L? In closing, could perhaps more constructive forms of discussion come out of this whole situation, such as: 1. What is a Theosophist 2. What makes a Theosophist different than a non-theosophist. 3. What is the expected conduct of a Theosophist. Etc... The following was a posting on Theos-World in regard to the situation at hand: > Thank your for posting a reminder on the broad definition of a >Theosophist, H.P.B. maintained! Hope you will be treated fairly by your >correspondent on Theos-L. You can decide for yourself if this has been the case. Sincerely, James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. For you reflection, I am appending several of the Rules for the E.S. (1888). I only hope that this turns into a constructive dialogue, not a case of "carrying coals to newcastle" [The Bishop can explain this phrase for anyone who doesn't understand it (if he so chooses, of course!)] 1. Groundless condemnation on hearsay of others, theosophists or not, must be refrained from, and charity to each others faults widely practiced within, as well as without, the theosophical area. 2. Repetition of statements or gossip derogatory to others must be avoided. But condemnation of crime, of social evils and systems of every description, in the abstract, is a duty of every member. Above all, the duty of every member is to fight against cant, hypocrisy, and injustice in every shape. 3. A derogatory or slanderous statement made against a fellow theosphist in the presence of a member, shall not be permitted by him to pass without protest, unless he knows it to be true, in which case he should remain silent. 20. As "the first test of true apprenticeship is devopion to the interest of another," it is expected that members will endeavor to fully comply with clauses 1 and 5 [which was specific to E.S. membership standing, and not relavent here] of the pledge. Theosophy must be made a living power in life, and, as a beginning, it must be applied to all relations, whether business, social, or personal... From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 12 00:06:41 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:06:41 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Uploads Mime-Version: 1.0 "The Key to Theosophy" and "Esoteric Buddhism" are available for download via "Theosophical Writings" on my homepage (see below). Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From illos@ari.net Mon Aug 12 00:33:38 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 20:33:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Kirkpatrick Subject: Re: Uploads In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I know Im gonna get back a bunch of instructions but Im gonna try to get off this list again. If you can take me of this list manually please do so. I have gotten of lists before, but it doesnt work on this one. If someone cares to watch Illsend you CC of my attempts. Please help From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Aug 12 04:09:19 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:09:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: "God" speaks & other flapdoodle In-Reply-To: <199608120258.TAA22886@sure.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, James S Yungkans wrote: > For you reflection, I am appending several of the Rules for the E.S. (1888). In was publication, are the above rules available? _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Mon Aug 12 05:03:20 1996 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 22:03:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: "God" speaks & other flapdoodle In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Doss, You may find a complete version of the Rules plus other relevant information in H.P.Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol.12, p.494-8. On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, James S Yungkans wrote: > > > For you reflection, I am appending several of the Rules for the E.S. (1888). > > In was publication, are the above rules available? From wichm@xs4all.nl Mon Aug 12 09:26:53 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:26:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608120926.LAA00181@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Answering Martin > I would plead for a discrimination between blind belief and >a reasoned belief. The latter is based on hypotheses, which can be tested >in one's life experience and may lead to rejecting or reformulating >of one or more of these hypotheses . I wouldn't call it "faith"anymore. It would stretch the concept of fhe word too far. >Michael>An enquiring mind should be prepared to lay all is pet-theories on >the >block, including the concepts of soul, monad, atman, budhi, manas etc. All >of this is pure speculation, and leads one away from the real contact with >the spiritual. > >Martin:being. That's all. Unfortunately these layers do not carry labels. > >Michael> Philosophizing with the intellect on matters spiritual may >become an escape. I am quite sure that if we see in the end backwards we >shall perceive that we missed the point completely. > > This is a well-known (?) trap. It can be fruitful to one's >understanding to study T/theosophy, but it is not a substitute >for experience. Jerry Schueler quoted Jung saying: Theosophy is lazy >thinking. Well, it needn't be so, of course, but it sometimes or maybe >more often turns out that way. It is very convenient to think that >one knows all when one has only *read about* things. > Last century's Theosophy presented itself like a scientific system. It contended that science was wrong on various subjects. Most Theosophical concepts cannot be tested with human experience: root-race, rounds, globes, etc etc. It is to be accepted a priori. >Martin: I see these concepts as hypotheses which can be tested >in one's life, like I said before. Theosophy is a spiritual philosophy >of life for me and each of its contentions can be tested, not by scientific >methods (such as these are now) but in and by one's own consciousness >and that is one aspect of 'treading the Path', which one can see as >process-theosophy. >When we blindly belief the tenets, then it has become a religion for us. > >Martin > I wonder whether it is a spiritual philosophy? It is a philosophy/speculation on spiritual concepts. > Well, I am glad that we could find each other on many other issues. MICHAEL ROGGE From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Mon Aug 12 09:10:13 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:07:13 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <709B9F040C@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Now I bring one more reference about Jesus lived under Pilate. Enc. Britanica Vol22 page 337 [The mention of Jesus`execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals XV,44) written about AD110 is worthy of note. In his account of the persecution of christians under the emperor Nero which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor in order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christians, who were already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppresscd pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title '-Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus)] Commenting this passage Gibbon I, XVI, 213 wrote: [The most sceptical criticism is obligated to respect the truth of his extraordinary fact, and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former [persecution of Nero against christians and jews in Rome] is confirmed by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mention the punishment which Nero inflicted on the christians, a sect of man who had embraced a new and criminal superstition (Nero XVI). The latter [authenticity of Anals XV,44] may be proved by the consent of the most ancient manuscripts, by the inimitable character of the style of Tacitus,by his reputation, which guarded his text from the interpolations of pious fraud, and by the purpot of his narration, which accused the first christians of the most atrocious crimes without insinuating that they possessed any miraculous or even magical powers above the rest of mankind] Here Gibbon refers to pious fraud made in Josephus text of Antiquities XX,200, also cited by HPB. Suetonius also wrote after AD100, about christian in Vita Claudii XXV,4 "He [Claudius] expelled the Jews, who had on the instigation of Chrestus continually been causing disturbances, from Rome." This may refer to turmoils occasioned among the Jews of Rome by the intrusion of Christianity into their midst. But the information must have reached the author in a completely garbled form or was understood by him quite wrongly to mean that this "Chrestus" had at that time appeared in Rome as a Jewish agitator. Claudius' edict of expulsion (AD 49) is also mentioned in Acts 18:2. (Enc. Britanicca) Abrantes From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 12 15:32:25 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:32:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960812113224_597618394@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Publishing Books Doss, I'm a writer and soon to be a publisher and I don't like it one little bit. It means that it will be impossible to make a living and thus it will remove the incentive for people to take the time to do it, except for the nuts and fanatics with their axes to grind without any reasonable people to answer them. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 12 15:35:24 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:35:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960812113523_597618439@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Publishing Books Alan, I've heard of it. Chuck From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Aug 12 17:23:00 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:23:00 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608121830.OAA03971@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: James S Yungkans, Re: "God" speaks & other flapdoodle Dear James and Alan, The only thing I can see is that you're both angry. I don't see any productive questions or answers or statements, present or future. So why don't you just both agree to drop this whole thing, & start out anew? Liesel From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Aug 12 20:32:15 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:32:15 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608122032.AA10046@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Historical Jesus Abrantis Writes: >Now I bring one more reference about Jesus lived under Pilate. > >Enc. Britanica Vol22 page 337 >[The mention of Jesus`execution in the Annals of the Roman >historian Tacitus (Annals XV,44) written about AD110 is worthy >of note. In his account of the persecution of christians under >the emperor Nero which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD >64), the Emperor in order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed >the fire on the so-called Christians, who were already hated >among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: The name is >derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had >executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppresscd >pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea >soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not >speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious >title '-Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside >Palestine as a proper name for Jesus)] JHE There is no question that by 110 A.D., when the above was written, the story of a Jesus crucified under Pilate was well established in the Christian community. Therefore Tacitus' explanation is not historical evidence of the event, but merely a repetition of Christian belief, which Tacitus would have no reason to question. Abrantes: >Here Gibbon refers to pious fraud made in Josephus text of >Antiquities XX,200, also cited by HPB. Suetonius also wrote >after AD100, about christian in Vita Claudii XXV,4 "He >[Claudius] expelled the Jews, who had on the instigation >of Chrestus continually been causing disturbances, from Rome." >This may refer to turmoils occasioned among the Jews of Rome by >the intrusion of Christianity into their midst. But the >information must have reached the author in a completely garbled >form or was understood by him quite wrongly to mean that this >"Chrestus" had at that time appeared in Rome as a Jewish >agitator. Claudius' edict of expulsion (AD 49) is also >mentioned in Acts 18:2. >(Enc. Britanicca) JHE This is indeed vague. "Chrestus" appears to be a latinized spelling of "Chrestos", meaning "good" or "pious" people. The term could refer to the "christian" sect of Judaism, but the term "chrestus" does not derive from "christos"--a very different word signifying a group of initiates. If this is the case, then the reference has nothing to do with Christians. On the other hand, we could assume that the word was both a misspelling and a reference to Jesus (making "Christus" to mean "Messiah"). In this case, the above could be a report of friction between the Jews and the christian sect among them, as you suggest above. In this case, the Romans are making a distinction between the Jews and the christians among them. But, in this case, the term "chrestus" might be correct after all, because the Romans of that time might have indeed considered these people "pious" compared to the trouble making Jews. However, even if we stretch the meaning of the above record by changing the spelling, the report still tells us nothing about the historicity of Jesus. Jerry ------------------------------------------ |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 Mon Aug 12 21:38:12 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 23:38:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608122138.XAA10258@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: "God" speaks & other flapdoodle JSY>It seems as though I may never be done with this.... James: there have been so many quarrels on this forum that you will get used to this kind of things :) Martin writes: > May I suggest to James that it might be a blind spot in his attitude towards > others... for deviating from standard Theosophical teachings? In answer, to quote from my last post (where I quoted HPB): > The Society's members represent the most > varied nationalities and races, and were born and educated in the most > dissimilar creeds...Some believe in one thing, others in another. Some > incline tward the ancient magic, or secret wisdom that was taught in the > sancuaries, which was the very opposite of supernaturalism or diabolism; > others in modern spiritualism [Spiritism], or intercourse with spirits of > the dead; still others in mesmerism... JSY>This is my view, which does not force 'Standard Theosophical Teachings' on anyone (albeit my philosophy embodies much of what is defined as such.) However, I do tend to much less tollerant (albeit in error at times) with those individuals that do not allow "essential features of their religious belief [or philosophy]" to be examined. I do personally consider refusing to discuss one's system, while offering to sell the contents of it, as somewhat patronizing, wouldn't you. A good point, James. I have had big trouble with a guy on this forum before who started patronizing me when I asked for more information. The crudeness was unbelievable. There may be the point of copyright, which may limit the amount of quoting (even for an author of his own work? - I don't know), but even then this author could summarize his ideas and make little drawings or pictures to clarify things if necessary. In short, I regard the refusal to do that as laziness and that is to be regretted. Unfortunately, there are some people on this list who don't want to discuss their findings and ideas because they are publishing books that contain these findings. That diminishes the value of this forum greatly IMO. JSY> A blind spot, NO. An intollerance, perhaps. Frustration over a lack of exchange, definatly. But I think a better approach ON BOTH SIDES would have aleviated much of this, don't you think? Maybe if I and Alan were to shake hands.... I hope so. JSY>As far the recognition of Alan as a Theosphist, which refers to a statement that I made in a PERSONAL E-mail directed to Alan ONLY (and that he chose to place into the public forum for PERSONAL ENDS), I will point to several of MY statments, albeit overlooked: If this was a personal E-mail (which I took for a theos-l discussion) then things are different. It is not done to place it into a public forum without the consent of the other. Did you do that Alan? And if so, why? > based upon what I have seen on Theos-L...tell me where I am mistaken. J>This was an attempt to adjust my view of Alan, if he thought I was in error. Rather than choosing to reply and point out my error (If there is one), Alan chose to change a private discussion into a public forum for ridicule. Not only is this self-serving, but this was definatly against the "Rules" that HPB had established for her "Esoteric Section" Is Mssr. Bain so far above the students of HPB that he may do this with impunity? James, I cannot comment on this before I understand what has been happening. Alan may want to clarify this. > If your views/actions/beliefs are different...I leave it to you to demonstrate it. J> Mssr. Bain, by posting a personal E-mail in which I made statements that I definatly would NOT make in public and would not make to anyone other than Mssr. Bain confirmed my statements rather than demonstrating any difference from what I had stated. I still await any example from Mr. Bain that is any different from my previous observations (I.E. an open conversation on HIS philosophy/viewpoints.) J>I will state here publicly, in answer to Liesel who says "please don't tell other people on this list anymore that they're not Theosophists", that my statement, in PRIVATE and to Alan ONLY, expressed an personal opinion I had developed over the course of a dialogue. I was attempting to resolve the problem as a theosophist would, honesty and PRIVATELY! Alan's choice to make personal coments into public declarations were his alone and amounted to a "derogatory or slanderous statement made against a fellow theosophist in the presence of [other] member[s]." As liesel says, "We have all kinds, and they all lay claim to that title..." Perhaps a definition for conduct should be defined AND ADHERED TO for anyone making such a claim. HPB's definition of 1879 might be a good starting point. Should we perhaps form such a definition here on Theos-L? Why is it that I feel that no such thing will happen on this forum? In closing, could perhaps more constructive forms of discussion come out of this whole situation, such as: 1. What is a Theosophist 2. What makes a Theosophist different than a non-theosophist. 3. What is the expected conduct of a Theosophist. Etc... James: a Theosophist is one who Theosophy does. The rest of these questions don't need to be answered as we all have different ideas about these questions (it would require a very lengthy discussion and it is all either too abstract or too idealized to be of much value in today's world) We don't live in the nineteenth century anymore. People make up their own minds and don't like these idealized concepts anymore. By Blavatsky's definition there may be hardly any Theosophist in this world.. JSY>The following was a posting on Theos-World in regard to the situation at hand: > Thank your for posting a reminder on the broad definition of a >Theosophist, H.P.B. maintained! Hope you will be treated fairly by your >correspondent on Theos-L. You can decide for yourself if this has been the case. I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. But I do think it's inappropriate to put personal E-mail on this board, like I said before. JSY>For you reflection, I am appending several of the Rules for the E.S. (1888). I know these rules, James. J>I only hope that this turns into a constructive dialogue, not a case of "carrying coals to newcastle" When we all agree that it is not done to put private E-mail on this board unless the other party has given his/her consent, then we have gained a little bit in understanding of proper behaviour. And let me add, that constructive dialogue is facilitated when people start discussing their ideas and insights instead of refering to their books. A matter of politeness and respect, I'd say. Don't get me wrong. Everybody has a right to write and sell books, but I personally feel that one should discuss one's ideas openly and fully instead of refering to the bookshop where one can buy a book. That's not what I'm looking for on this forum, although I may decide to buy the book after I've had a good discussion with its author. Martin From euser@euronet.nl Mon Aug 12 21:38:19 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 23:38:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608122138.XAA10291@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Answering Martin > I would plead for a discrimination between blind belief and >a reasoned belief. The latter is based on hypotheses, which can be tested >in one's life experience and may lead to rejecting or reformulating >of one or more of these hypotheses . Michael>I wouldn't call it "faith"anymore. It would stretch the concept of fhe word too far. Let's call it an informed opinion, ok? >Martin:being. That's all. Michael>Unfortunately these layers do not carry labels. You're right. These labels have been phrased in order to be able to communicate, to describe these layers. That may have added to confusion about these concepts. On the other hand, no verbal communication is possible without the use of concepts - see the problem? > >Michael> Philosophizing with the intellect on matters spiritual may >become an escape. I am quite sure that if we see in the end backwards we >shall perceive that we missed the point completely. > > This is a well-known (?) trap. It can be fruitful to one's >understanding to study T/theosophy, but it is not a substitute >for experience. Jerry Schueler quoted Jung saying: Theosophy is lazy >thinking. Well, it needn't be so, of course, but it sometimes or maybe >more often turns out that way. It is very convenient to think that >one knows all when one has only *read about* things. > Last century's Theosophy presented itself like a scientific system. It contended that science was wrong on various subjects. Blavatsky had a reason for that: she contended dogmatic scientific ideas about man and nature. Also, she stretched the extent of the word 'science' into the metaphysical, or better: spiritual world or sphere. Of course, one can question that (but see my opinion below). Michael> Most Theosophical concepts cannot be tested with human experience: root-race, rounds, globes, etc etc. It is to be accepted a priori. That's a difficult point to discuss. Many Theosophists may acccept this a priori, but that doesn't imply blind belief. I look upon this matter as being hypotheses about man, nature, cosmos. Different interpretations can be given to these concepts, which may complicate things further. But I do think these ideas or teachings can be tested in one's experience although it may require lifetimes to come to some final conclusions .. >Martin: I see these concepts as hypotheses which can be tested >in one's life, like I said before. Theosophy is a spiritual philosophy >of life for me and each of its contentions can be tested, not by scientific >methods (such as these are now) but in and by one's own consciousness >and that is one aspect of 'treading the Path', which one can see as >process-theosophy. >When we blindly belief the tenets, then it has become a religion for us. > >Martin > Michael>I wonder whether it is a spiritual philosophy? It is a philosophy/speculation on spiritual concepts. That means the same to me. It *is* a philosophy of life, that can hardly be contended IMO. > Michael>Well, I am glad that we could find each other on many other issues. Sure. FYI, I'm also studying other systems/ideas/teachings and try to relate these to my own experiences in daily life (and to Theosophy too). It is always gratifying to me when I succeed in extending my understanding of things and discussions such as these are helpful, maybe for others too. Martin From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 13 01:55:53 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 02:55:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To: James S Yungkans, Re: "God" speaks & other flapdoodle In-Reply-To: <199608121830.OAA03971@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608121830.OAA03971@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Dear James and Alan, > >The only thing I can see is that you're both angry. I don't see any >productive questions or answers or statements, present or future. So why >don't you just both agree to drop this whole thing, & start out anew? > >Liesel > I already dropped it. I would like it to stay dropped. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 12 17:10:42 1996 Date: 12 Aug 96 13:10:42 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Man bearing globe Message-Id: <960812171042_72723.2375_FHP29-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >Yes our earth is hell, but not just hell, but a school for those souls encased in seven bodies, >seeking freedom from the six lower world. HPB provides insights into the necessary key to >turn the locks of the laya centers to travel and know for ourselves ! Maybe you never appreciate heaven/home until you've visited earth/hell. >We seek a perfection on each of the levels. The illusive and illusory goal seems to be: >1. perfect health - eternal incarnation (Chopra fans live here) Virgoan or Sixth house perfection. >2. perfect physical digestion and a state of vegetative bliss - (Vegans unite, we all need to be >plants, some say) The moon in Taurus - the green thumb position. Buys a plant at the garden shop everytime they pass it by. (My addiction) >3. agressive beautifull bodies in an orgy of eating and sex - animal heaven Scorpio - the desire to live intensely by experiencing life to the max. Pass the Scotch and bring on the dancing girls. >4. a static state of life as we know it - Bougeoise paradise of the eternal family values Sit-com city. The home-loving Cancer. >5. logical conclusion - unified field theory that explains everything in the universe in math >equations (but why would we the universe, if we had the equations?) A Gemini met an Aquarian on the mental plane. Their numbers were perfect and their heads began to rattle like the tails of snakes who knew too much. >6. A world of blissful dieties and a heaven with streets paved with gold, spitting water melon seed with the kids throughout eternity. Pisces! >7. Unitive awareness - we have it all ready, but have it in a fractured incomplete form which is >being revealed slowly, every so SLOWLY to humanity and sometime Quickly in flashes of >enlightenment. Neptune conjunct Uranus. Lightening strikes a boater on the ocean and he walks back across the water back to shore. - Ann E. Bermingham From jem@vnet.net Mon Aug 12 21:01:41 1996 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:01:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199608122101.RAA29381@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: questions?? hi - I don't speak spanish, but is there a reason why the people on this list are so quiet?? there are quite a few subscribers. maybe someone who speaks spanish could break the ice?? peace - john e. mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:01:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Subject: questions?? Message-ID: <199608122101.RAA29381@katie.vnet.net> hi - I don't speak spanish, but is there a reason why the people on this list are so quiet?? there are quite a few subscribers. maybe someone who speaks spanish could break the ice?? peace - john e. mead From saf@angel.elektra.ru Tue Aug 13 01:20:31 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:10:56 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608130512.AA13231@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Period of reincarnation Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Macnev Uri * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= > For mr. Bain > Period of reincarnation Appendix to my previous letter on reincarnation: "It's hard to define even the average period of being in the thin world between the incarnations of the average cultu- ral man. It's because of evolution cycles follow in progressi- on faster and faster, and if in previous race and in beginning of the fifth race the pauses between incarnations were long, now they are significantly shortened, and one can speak not about centuries, but of decades or even few years. Among the disciples of great Masters one can also observe very fast in- carnations due special reasons - consciousness of humanity ne- eds immediate advances. ... One can note that this approaching of fire energies will allow the worlds draw nearer and people will get a testimony a many unusual phenomenons of nature. In connection with this reincarnations get faster, and the child- ren remembering their past will appear more often; the past might be easily verified, because the testimoners of that life will be still alive." (Letters of E.I. Roerich, 17.3.36) From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Aug 13 14:38:57 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 10:38:57 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608131438.KAA16365@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word The recent dustup between James and Alan illustrates again a problem that has been recurrent on the list. Due to all their ambiguities and complexities, the words "Theosophy" and "Theosophist" lend themselves to use as weapons in debate. It all starts with HPB, who is so inconsistent on the subject that she lends ammunition to anyone who wants to use these words as weapons. The inclusive HPB recognizes theosophy as a long-standing presence in Western thought, and accords the name Theosophist to anyone who has an inspiration of his/her own that leads toward the divine. One could find many, many passages that would seem to refute once and for all any limited, exclusive usages of the terms. But on the other hand, the exclusive HPB says things like "the only real Theosophists in the TS are in the ES" that give support to those who want to use the word as a weapon to exclude others. So when James, privately or not, challenges Alan as to whether or not he is a real Theosophist, this repeats a form of aggression that has been used within the movement from the beginning. Whether or not one's questions are justified, I consider this kind of communication below the belt. There are so many highfalutin' requirements attached to the term in one text or another, that we could reasonably wonder if there are *any* "real Theosophists" in the world who meet them all. Most of us want to have a sense of belonging, and part of becoming a Theosophist is feeling that the movement is something one wants to belong to. It does violence to that feeling of affiliation for someone to challenge one's status as a Theosophist. They are saying in essence "you don't belong." It took me quite a while to stop caring whether or not I was accepted as a Theosophist, partly by realizing that defining you as an outsider is the only real weapon these people have. Thus deciding that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone considers you part of the group can be liberating, placing you beyond the reach of their exclusion. But it was a long hard path getting to that point. I suggest that questioning, explicitly or implicitly, whether or not someone is a "real Theosophist" be considered off limits in our discourse. On the other hand, questioning whether a particular position or attitude is theosophical depersonalizes the issue somewhat and lends itself to exploration without rancor. From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Aug 13 15:42:01 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 11:42:01 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960813114201_455352702@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word Paul, I agree with what you wrote. One of the advantages of never having fit in with anyone in my life is that I had long since given up on the concept of "belonging" long before I joined the TS and thus never really cared if I was totally accepted or not. In fact, when I was more or less accepted I almost went into shock. This business of trying to club each other into verbal submission by debating over who is the true and holy Theosophist accomplishes nothing. NO one is persuaded by it and no one is going to change a position in the face of such behavior. On the contrary, it only serves to harden the respective positions. The result is the inevitable screaming match that seems to be the bulk of the discourse on this, and most other, lists. It gets pretty boring after a while. Chuck the Heretic From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Tue Aug 13 19:48:42 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 15:48:42 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608131948.PAA02776@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Authorial reluctance Martin, in today's digest, mentions that published authors on the list have been reluctant to go into detail about their works in progress. I only remember one question about mine, and thought my response sufficiently detailed. If anyone cares to ask anything more about my approach to Cayce, feel free. Perhaps this reference didn't include me, however. Without commenting on the specific dispute at hand, I would like to remark that the expectations/demands some people make on authors are really incredible. Sometimes, people want or expect free books on the basis of acquaintance with the author. That's minor. But in a few cases, something more annoying has happened to me. People assume than an author owes extensive justifications or defenses of his work to any individual who chooses to criticize or challenge it, even hostile total strangers, and that there is no limit to the extent to which this can be expected. I have experienced just a few cases of this, including someone who falsely claimed to have read my books and demanding "proof" in long angrey letters, in ways that made it clear he had not. This is harassment. I have seen the problem 100fold with David Lane, who gets daily email from angry readers and non-readers alike. Ken Wilber discusses this phenomenon in a recent Quest interview; he seems to get huge piles of mail from people who expect him to devote vast energies to answering their complaints and arguments-- and regard him as arrogant for not doing so. Writing a book is an exhausting process, and most authors don't want to be further exhausted by subjecting themselves to interrogation by unfriendly critics, before or after publication. Especially when experience shows that this kind of thing becomes a tar baby, and every attempt to placate your critics only makes them more implacable. I hope this makes clearer the position in which authors find themselves, whether or not it is relevant to the case at hand. From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Aug 13 21:07:49 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:07:49 +1200 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960813210749.00695bdc@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word At 10:41 AM 13/08/96 -0400, you wrote: >The recent dustup between James and Alan illustrates again >a problem that has been recurrent on the list. Due to all >their ambiguities and complexities, the words "Theosophy" and >"Theosophist" lend themselves to use as weapons in debate. > >It all starts with HPB, who is so inconsistent on the subject >that she lends ammunition to anyone who wants to use these >words as weapons. The inclusive HPB recognizes theosophy as a >long-standing presence in Western thought, and accords the name >Theosophist to anyone who has an inspiration of his/her own >that leads toward the divine. One could find many, many >passages that would seem to refute once and for all any >limited, exclusive usages of the terms. But on the other hand, >the exclusive HPB says things like "the only real Theosophists >in the TS are in the ES" that give support to those who want to >use the word as a weapon to exclude others. I have recently started thinking about 'words' as we all take for granted that the words we use to talk to each other stand for real 'things', 'meanings' etc. It seems to me that we accept or reject 'meanings' according to our own understanding and in many cases, our own pet ideas. What a Theosophist means to me is probably different to what it means to someone else no matter what each has read on the subject. I took a member of our Lodge to the last Theosophy Convention and she was most upset at what she percieved as un-theosophical behaviour by a number of people and it seemed she had Theosophy on some sort of pedestal and it got knocked off and now she is slowly withdrawing from the Lodge as she no longer finds us quite what she thought. We all live in our own 'private world' and somehow seem to expect others to live in a similar 'private world' but this is not so. With a little careful observation and attention to what others say and do, it becomes quite obvious that their 'world' operates in a different way to our own. Unless we make allowances for this fact, and there are many others, we will have this discord that arises due to expectations of others that are only in our own minds. The little word 'is' causes a lot of mental blockages as it is such a definite expression. 'He is not a Theosophist,' she is a troublemaker' etc. Those statements don't leave much room for brotherly understanding that there may be a reason why a person 'is' whatever it is we judge them to be. I feel that the expression, 'In my opinion', 'It seems to me', etc at least softens a statement that 'is', so that the meaning is not so emphatic as to cause offense. This thinking about words has been the cause for my absence from discussions here because just now I am wondering what throwing words at each other means and if there is any real gain from it. I know we learn from each other but if we ourselves have unconscious meanings etc attached to the the language we use, may it not be rather a case of arguing for our own views rather than really and truly trying to see the meaning of what others are saying with the words they chose to use to represent their personal meanings. I may change my views later when I become more familiar with the concepts but I am learning so much just now that I would rather keep quiet until I have something sensible to say. > >So when James, privately or not, challenges Alan as to whether >or not he is a real Theosophist, this repeats a form of >aggression that has been used within the movement from the >beginning. Whether or not one's questions are justified, I >consider this kind of communication below the belt. There are >so many highfalutin' requirements attached to the term in one >text or another, that we could reasonably wonder if there are >*any* "real Theosophists" in the world who meet them all. What is a real Theosophist? I doubt if anyone really knows, so it becomes a nonsense question. We could talk about it for the next year and probably not be any further ahead. Each of us has our ideas about the subject and I bet they are all different. > >Most of us want to have a sense of belonging, and part of >becoming a Theosophist is feeling that the movement is >something one wants to belong to. It does violence to that >feeling of affiliation for someone to challenge one's status as >a Theosophist. They are saying in essence "you don't belong." >It took me quite a while to stop caring whether or not I was >accepted as a Theosophist, partly by realizing that defining >you as an outsider is the only real weapon these people have. Thus >deciding that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone considers >you part of the group can be liberating, placing you beyond the >reach of their exclusion. A sense of belonging can be a real trap for the unwary and that many be the only reason many people belong to the organisations that they do. Not for what it stands for or its teachings etc but to have a comfort zone where they feel at home. That is fine if that is all one wants out of live at the stage one is at. But it seems to impose a certain way of thinking that the organisation expects if one wants to stay in it. We have only to think of the recent post on the TS official structure to realise that. Maybe we need to free ourselves from the Theosophical labels we have of ourselves and others if we want any real dialogue going. A careful reading of the various MM letters shows that HPB was by no means infallible and that they smacked her hand at times for the things she wrote in the magazine. Even she says herself that she was a disappointment to them at times, or words to that effect. She did not see herself in the same light as many wish to see her today. We argue about what HPB says and what she did not say and if she is the source literature etc. My own personal ideas is that if any teaching speaks to me then I will pursue it even if it does not appear to be acceptable to official TS. If it helps me understand my fellow beings and shines some light on 'my path' then it will be worth its weight in gold. > >But it was a long hard path getting to that point. I suggest >that questioning, explicitly or implicitly, whether or not >someone is a "real Theosophist" be considered off limits in our >discourse. On the other hand, questioning whether a particular >position or attitude is theosophical depersonalizes the issue >somewhat and lends itself to exploration without rancor. Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding From theos@sure.net Tue Aug 13 21:31:10 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:31:10 -0700 (PDT) From: James S Yungkans Message-Id: <199608132131.OAA14298@sure.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Them's Fight'n words (Re: Theosophist vs Real Theosophist) As the "Dust" starts to settle, Paul points to the interesting concept of a "Theosophist" that I must admit I had not relaized the language barrier (I.E. " Due to all their ambiguities and complexities, the words "Theosophy" and "Theosophist" lend themselves to use as weapons") I can hear in the background, in tones not exactly pleasant, "Yea, Right." An interesting tidbit is found in "the inner group teachings" of HPB, in a statement made by her November 12, 1890: HPB said that The Inner group was the Manas [Buddhi-Manas?] The E.S. was the Lower Manas [Kama-Manas?] The T.S. was the Quarternary This model could explain the "Duality" that Paul talks about when he wrote" [Of the T.S., or the "Quarternary"] "The inclusive HPB recognizes theosophy as a long-standing presence in Western thought, and accords the name Theosophist to anyone who has an inspiration of his/her own that leads toward the divine. One could find many, many passages that would seem to refute once and for all any limited, exclusive usages of the terms." [This would relate to any member of the Society, Ref:1879 article] [Of the E.S., or the "Lower Manas"] "But on the other hand, the exclusive HPB says things like "the only real Theosophists in the TS are in the ES" [This would coorilate to the 'Oath' requirements of the E.S.] The "Inner Group" would be HPB's personal 'Chelas', with very exacting restrictions upon their conduct, who were to be taught "Practical Occultism. This included, in addition to stict adherence to the E.S. rules, vegatarianism and chastity (I can here the 'Healthy Sex Life' proponents having an opinion here.) While Paul says "There are so many highfalutin' requirements attached to the term in one text or another", there must be some guideline of what we accept. Perhaps the problem is an attempt to "Merge" these three levels into a common definition of "Theosophist." We've lost the concept that one can be a Theosophist and not be a member of the T.S., as well as there being T.S. members who are not Theosophists, and that not all Theosophists are strict HPB proponents!. And just as the Heretic says "of trying to club each other into verbal submission by debating over who is the true and holy Theosophist", we could perhaps Say that "No Member shall boast of being [a Theosophist.]"(E.S. Rule #4). Everyone has to agree with Chuck that "It gets pretty boring after a while." What does anyone else have to say to Paul's suggestion "that questioning, explicitly or implicitly, whether or not someone is a "real Theosophist" be considered off limits in our discourse." It's interesting how closely Paul redefines E.S. Rules #5 and #6: 5. No member shall pry into the standing in this section of a [True Theosophist (Old language: E.S.)], nor shall he uninvited seek to know if another Theosophist is a [True Theosophist.]... 6. Any [True Theosophist] may, if he chooses, remain unknown as such, and that desire, if suspected by others, must not be talked about or referred to. Unfortunatly, I have to agree with the following exchange: Liesel: "We have all kinds, and they all lay claim to that title..." James : "Perhaps a definition for conduct should be defined AND ADHERED TO for anyone making such a claim. HPB's definition of 1879 might be a good starting point. Should we perhaps form such a definition here on Theos-L? Martin: "Why is it that I feel that no such thing will happen on this forum? Well, lets see if we can prove Liesel wrong (Politely stated, of course), when he says "I don't see any productive questions or answers or statements, present or future." Where does this go from here? It's up to Theos-L. Fraternally, James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S. P.S. ALAN? Want to shake hands? From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 13 23:26:12 1996 Date: 13 Aug 96 19:26:12 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Theosophist - a fighting word Message-Id: <960813232612_72723.2375_FHP36-1@CompuServe.COM> Bee: >I took a member of our Lodge to the last Theosophy Convention and she was >most upset at what she percieved as un-theosophical behaviour by a number of >people and it seemed she had Theosophy on some sort of pedestal and it got >knocked off and now she is slowly withdrawing from the Lodge as she no >longer finds us quite what she thought. This reminds me of my own experiences, particularly when I was heavily involved with the LCC. Some members there felt that to be a member of the church, one should be a Theosophist and "know" Theosophy, even though the church was readily accepting people with no Theosophical background. It was also assumed that everyone that was a church member/Theosophist was a strict vegetarian. As for myself being a Theosophist, I have felt uneasy about putting that label on myself, simply because I didn't quite know what it meant to be one. I wondered - how do I measure up to the list of requirements when I don't even know what they are? So what does *define* a Theosophist? Eats lots of soy protein? Reads Blavatsky? Goes to the Annual Meeting? Fights with other members? Personally speaking, I would prefer this definition: A Theosophist agrees to the three objects. The rest is open to discussion. Lots of discussion. -Ann E. Bermingham From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Aug 14 00:09:42 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:09:42 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960813191339.2ef71108@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophist Hi Without going into all the various points discussed on the subject, I am not sure if I am a Theosophist or not according to any definition of Theosophist. Once we start defining Theosophist, no matter under whose definition, including that of HPB we have the problem of those who are Theosophists and those who are not. Personally, I consider myself just a humble novice student of Theosophy trying to learn what ever crumbs of "Divine Wisdom" that I may be lucky to come across. I am sure there are a number of others in the same boat. At the same time I do not deny there may be experts and Adepts in Divine Wisdom. MKR ********************** end of message ***************** From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Aug 14 00:09:48 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:09:48 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960813191345.2ef77906@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word At 05:10 PM 8/13/96 -0400, Bee wrote: >At 10:41 AM 13/08/96 -0400, you wrote: >>The recent dustup between James and Alan illustrates again >>a problem that has been recurrent on the list. Due to all >>their ambiguities and complexities, the words "Theosophy" and >>"Theosophist" lend themselves to use as weapons in debate. >> >>It all starts with HPB, who is so inconsistent on the subject >>that she lends ammunition to anyone who wants to use these >>words as weapons. The inclusive HPB recognizes theosophy as a >>long-standing presence in Western thought, and accords the name >>Theosophist to anyone who has an inspiration of his/her own >>that leads toward the divine. One could find many, many >>passages that would seem to refute once and for all any >>limited, exclusive usages of the terms. But on the other hand, >>the exclusive HPB says things like "the only real Theosophists >>in the TS are in the ES" that give support to those who want to >>use the word as a weapon to exclude others. > In addition to the >I have recently started thinking about 'words' as we all take for granted >that the words we use to talk to each other stand for real 'things', >'meanings' etc. It seems to me that we accept or reject 'meanings' according >to our own understanding and in many cases, our own pet ideas. What a >Theosophist means to me is probably different to what it means to someone >else no matter what each has read on the subject. >I took a member of our Lodge to the last Theosophy Convention and she was >most upset at what she percieved as un-theosophical behaviour by a number of >people and it seemed she had Theosophy on some sort of pedestal and it got >knocked off and now she is slowly withdrawing from the Lodge as she no >longer finds us quite what she thought. >We all live in our own 'private world' and somehow seem to expect others to >live in a similar 'private world' but this is not so. With a little careful >observation and attention to what others say and do, it becomes quite >obvious that their 'world' operates in a different way to our own. Unless we >make allowances for this fact, and there are many others, we will have this >discord that arises due to expectations of others that are only in our own >minds. The little word 'is' causes a lot of mental blockages as it is such a >definite expression. 'He is not a Theosophist,' she is a troublemaker' etc. Sometimes, instead of using explicit statements like the above, there are other "code" words used by members of TS. One that can be seen in the USA, is the statement "unbrotherly". Other countries have other code words. What is unfortunate is that these statements are made on the basis of personal judgemental framework. Age or length of membership or erudition or leadership position has no effect on this kind of categorization using code words. MKR ********************** end of message ***************** From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Aug 14 00:09:51 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:09:51 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960813191348.2ef7cb74@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: ASCII Texts Hi With the increasing number of Theosophical Texts available on cyberspace, it would be a good idea to compile a catalog and provide the www or ftp information. So anyone interested in texts can look through a list and get anything that interests. MKR ********************** end of message ***************** From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Aug 14 00:09:45 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:09:45 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960813191342.2ef72ab4@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Authorial reluctance At 03:53 PM 8/13/96 -0400, Paul wrote: > >Sometimes, people want or expect free books on the basis of acquaintance with the >author. I did not know that this is going on. I am thinking of getting the e-mail addresses of some of the authors and send them a request. With electronic publishing, the full texts can be downloaded and authors would not have this problem. >annoying has happened to me. People assume than an author owes extensive >justifications or defenses of his work to any individual who chooses >to criticize or challenge it, even hostile total strangers, and that >there is no limit to the extent to which this can be expected. I have >experienced just a few cases of this, including someone who falsely >claimed to have read my books and demanding "proof" in long >angrey letters, in ways that made it clear he had not. This is harassment. >I have seen the problem 100fold with David Lane, who gets daily email >from angry readers and non-readers alike. Ken Wilber discusses this >phenomenon in a recent Quest interview; he seems to get huge piles of mail >from people who expect him to devote vast energies to answering their >complaints and arguments-- and regard him as arrogant for not >doing so. When electronic publishing in cyberspace, could one imagine the amount of correspondence that would be generated by e-mail? > >Writing a book is an exhausting process, and most authors don't >want to be further exhausted by subjecting themselves to >interrogation by unfriendly critics, before or after >publication. Especially when experience shows that this kind >of thing becomes a tar baby, and every attempt to placate your >critics only makes them more implacable. > >I hope this makes clearer the position in which authors find >themselves, whether or not it is relevant to the case at hand. > Thanks for the information. MKR ********************** end of message ***************** From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 13 01:59:17 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 02:59:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Nazarenes Mime-Version: 1.0 "The Nazarenes" Part 3 is now available from my homepage Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 02:11:58 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 03:11:58 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960813210749.00695bdc@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <1.5.4.32.19960813210749.00695bdc@whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding A merry quip - I enjoyed it! Alan the Personist. --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 02:05:55 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 03:05:55 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word In-Reply-To: <199608131438.KAA16365@leo.vsla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608131438.KAA16365@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes > I suggest >that questioning, explicitly or implicitly, whether or not >someone is a "real Theosophist" be considered off limits in our >discourse. Definitely! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 01:59:59 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 02:59:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <1cIFPCAfMTEyEwn+@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Period of reincarnation In-Reply-To: <199608130512.AA13231@angel.elektra.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Hi! - I tried to send two files for Konstantin through your e-mail address (at his request) but both were returned with the error message "too many hops" - he said that files over 16K he could not receive. Thank you for the forwarded item below - most interesting. Alan In message <199608130512.AA13231@angel.elektra.ru>, Macnev Uri writes >Hello! > >========================= >* Forwarded by Macnev Uri >* From : Kay Ziatz >========================= > >> For mr. Bain >> Period of reincarnation > > Appendix to my previous letter on reincarnation: > > "It's hard to define even the average period of being in >the thin world between the incarnations of the average cultu- >ral man. It's because of evolution cycles follow in progressi- >on faster and faster, and if in previous race and in beginning >of the fifth race the pauses between incarnations were long, >now they are significantly shortened, and one can speak not >about centuries, but of decades or even few years. Among the >disciples of great Masters one can also observe very fast in- >carnations due special reasons - consciousness of humanity ne- >eds immediate advances. ... One can note that this approaching >of fire energies will allow the worlds draw nearer and people >will get a testimony a many unusual phenomenons of nature. In >connection with this reincarnations get faster, and the child- >ren remembering their past will appear more often; the past >might be easily verified, because the testimoners of that life >will be still alive." > > (Letters of E.I. Roerich, 17.3.36) > > > --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 02:35:59 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 03:35:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Nazarenes Mime-Version: 1.0 The fourth and final part of my "The Nazarenes" is now available from my homepage. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 02:30:17 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 03:30:17 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: ASCII Texts In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960813191348.2ef7cb74@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <2.2.16.19960813191348.2ef7cb74@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes >Hi > >With the increasing number of Theosophical Texts available on cyberspace, it >would be a good idea to compile a catalog and provide the www or ftp >information. So anyone interested in texts can look through a list and get >anything that interests. > >MKR >********************** end of message ***************** > My homepage has a few (not all ASCII) under the link "Theosophical Writings" and I hope to add more - perhaps rotating them within the limits of my 5MB allocation. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 02:45:48 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 03:45:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Welcome Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Michael Rogge! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed Aug 14 03:17:14 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:17:14 +1200 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960814031714.00697294@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: "Theosophist"-- a fighting word At 10:49 PM 13/08/96 -0400, you wrote: >In message <1.5.4.32.19960813210749.00695bdc@whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown > writes >>BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding > >A merry quip - I enjoyed it! So pleased to be of service:-) Watch the space, more changes available. Bee Brown COFFEE.EXE missing - Insert Cup and Press Any Key! > >Alan the Personist. >--------- >Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding From saf@angel.elektra.ru Wed Aug 14 01:05:03 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:48:04 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608140452.AA17077@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Books on the web For: Bjorn Roxendal Subject: Books on the web b> best seems to be to have the texts available directly in HTML format. No. It creates the barrier for those downloaders whose systems don't support html docs. Of course, signs like are useful and don't interfere. W/best wishes, 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 Wed Aug 14 01:05:23 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:50:26 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608140452.AA17082@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Views on reincarnation For: Dr. A.M.Bain Subject: views on reincarnation > In countries such as India, where reincarnation is held to be a fact, > most accounts concern the almost *immediate* reincarnation of someone, > and the best documented ones show the new soul inhabiting a child in a > family not far from its former abode in terms of time *and* distance. > This does *not* concur with the TS teaching. Well, but closely corresponds to Bailey & Agni-yoga. > I was in a 1st World War aircraft, and was shot down (1918). > Reborn in 1933 with an otherwise unaccountably emotional attachment to > songs of WWI. So, please reply to my previous letter about afterdeath experience - did you awake in astral plan immediately after death? Also you can prove or refute E.Barker - does she describe properly world war 1 view from astral? W/best wishes, 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 Wed Aug 14 01:05:39 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:49:19 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608140452.AA17080@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Blavatsky & Beatles For: Keith Price Subject: Blavatsky & Beatles k> disco. Now there is a gold mine for spiritual analysis. The k> total spiritual bankruptcy and materialism of disco as a reac- k> tion to the Eastern mysticism and midly revolutionary politics k> of the Beatles. Pop music, Madonna notwithstanding, has never k> recovered its supposed spiritual basis that some of Imho 1980 was a significant year. Many musicians, including J. Lennon, died, many rock groups were dissolved. Other groups and solo musicians changed their style to worse - as Queen, Uriah Heep, Pink Floyd, M. Oldfield, Clannad & so on. Maybe Platon was right - all the art is inspired by some outer dai- mons. Even disco was other, more suitable, before 1980. Does anybody know, what happened in 1980? Maybe some new astrolo- gical period began? BTW, here in Moscow in winter 1979-80 all the apple trees were frozen out and only now we have generally restored our gardens. A contrary, computer age began in 1980 or 1979. Since compu- ters are known long ago, only then they began play a big part. It would be interesting to define (for comparison), when the architecture has gone worse. I can report an definite date for Soviet Union - 1956-57, but i don't know, does such a date for a western countries exist. W/best wishes, 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 Wed Aug 14 01:05:54 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:47:36 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608140452.AA17076@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Identity of Masters For: wichm@xs4all.nl Subject: Identity of Masters Hell'o! w> After Einstein multi-dimensional personalities emerged (Seth). w> It is remarkable that these subjects were almost ignored by the Masters. It's a lie. C.Leadbeater described multidimentional worlds and corresponding entities before Einstein. But a contrary, Einstein read theosophical books. Maybe he was disagree with them - i don't know, but anyway, he got acquainted with them. w> PAUL K' states:"Find me evidence of any real spiritual Master of the w> 19th century who knew the truth unveiled by 20th century science.". This Paul assumes that "truth" was unveiled in 20th century. It seems suspicious. Anyway, theosophists knew in XIX century that atom is splittable, what denied by science of that times. Isotopes were discovered by theosophists several years earlier than by the ordinary science. They also defined atomic weights of some elements more close to contemporary numbers than to known then. These are He, Ca, Zn, As, Se, Kr, Rb, Cd, Sb, I, Xe, Os, Ir, Pt, Au. w> I have met a number of Tibetan monks, some from the inner circle of the w> Dalai Lama. I was always tempted to tell them about the Theosophic Masters So why did he take part in 100th T.S. anniversary? By the way, western tourists who visited USSR have never seen strikes and konzentrazionlagers there, but it doesn't prove that they didn't exist. w> Then there is the development of the handwriting and grammar (Russian w> grammatical mistakes). Admittedly many were explained by her, but rather These mistakes could be made by anyone whose native language has an archaic grammatic structure. These languages are sanskrit, all slavic languages except bulgarian, languages of baltic countries, latin, etc. and partially spanish and portugues. (You can see here letters from Brazil which are written like mine. They might be trans- lated to russian without changing word order. "Unveiled Isis" vs "Isis Unveiled" - this corresponds also to a russian title of this book). Only few languages have such a weird grammar as english has. Konstantin Zaitzev, Moscow, Russia 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 Wed Aug 14 01:06:10 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:49:45 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608140452.AA17081@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Sri Aurobindo For: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Sri Aurobindo m> I post a complete text of Sri Aurobindo's small book (lecture notes?) But it doesn't prove that Sri Aurobindo belongs to theosophical tradition. Terms used there don't match in meaning with theosophical ones. More than that, it controverses with Bhagavad-gita in some points. > I come next to Prana, the nervous or vital element in man which is >centralised below the Manas and Chitta in the subtle body and connected > with the navel in the Sthula Deha. And where's kama? :) > into the error of those who try to harmonise Yogic Science with the > physical science of the Europeans and search for the Yogic Nadis and > Chakras in the physical body. You will not find them there. There are Although japanese made experiments and proved that electrical field in chakra area changes when one concentrates on it. > Educate the Will first, through the Will > educate the Jnanam, through the Jnanam purify the Chitta, control the > Prana and calm the Manas. Black lodge methods, BTW. (using will instead of heart) > Through all these instruments immortalise the body. Immortalize body. What for? For preserving astral & mental bodies (by keeping an attratcion center) left by higher self and avoid getting into 8th sphere. ;) > unilluminated Buddhi No comments :() > Again if you think with the Buddhists that all life is a misery and > extinction of some kind the highest good, or if you think with the > Mayavadin that we came into this world with no other object but to get > out of it again as soon as possible, like the famous general whose greatest > military exploit was to march up a hill in order to march back again, > you had better pass me by. In this paragraph he completely dissociates himself from a heritage of both Buddha & Shankaracharya. And shows that he wasn't acquainted enough with both mayavada & shunyavada. > I do not find that teaching in the Veda "Three-guna pertaining are vedas, be higher than three gunas, Arjuna" :) > I am a Tantric. It explains all. > If men were satisfied with indulging in reason, memory and Castanedist. :) > That is the real yoga, the Mahapantha, that is the true and only "Buy only in our shop. Don't allow yourself to be fooled in other place." W/best wishes, 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 Wed Aug 14 01:06:27 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:48:34 From: "Macnev Uri" Message-Id: <199608140452.AA17078@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Full Moon ... For: Keith Price Subject: Full Moon in Aquaraius meditation k> The mediations at the full moon revivify our immune systems k> and the immune system of the planet being attacked by the Daniil Andreyev in "World Rose" (which isn't translated, IMO) wrote that a demon of sexual desire called Voglea inhabits the moon. She lives on a dark side because the sunlight is dangerous for her. So, the moon radiation is healthy when the Moon is groving and full, and, contrary, harmful when the Moon is dark. But all this book is very suspicious and i don't trust it a much. It was written in jail in a full isolation, some ideas are theosophical and others are not. It's very rich of demonology and descriptions of different hells (which are 2-dimensional worlds w/multidimentional time) and purgetorias. He writes also that headquartes of evil forces is loca- ted on Antares (eagle). But one idea from that book seems me an interes- ting. It's an explanation about Faeton, missing planet between Mars & Ju- piter. It had a satellite, like Moon. All evil forses were extradicted >from Faeton to its satellite. Then Faeton "transfigurated" like J. Christ and desappeared form a physical plane. An annihilation of such a great mass of course produced a gravitational shock which destroyed the satel- lite. So asteroides which we watch, are pieces of the satellite, not of Faeton. Because of that a summary mass of all the asteroides doesn't re- ach a number compatible with a mass of any "serious" planet, like Earth or even Mars. To save a net resources, here i append two questions to all subscribers: 1. Corresponding to some theosophical teachings, astral plane of Earth is isolated from those of other planets. But an astral atmo- sphere is large enough and enfolds Moon. What do you think, will the astronauts die if they undertake a flight to Mars? Won't their astral bodies explode when leaving earth astral atmosphere? Is it possible to construct the starships which will preserve a proper astral atmosphere inside, like a gaseous atmosphere is preserved? (I have no information, whether were any living beings on board of automatical stations already sent to Mars.) 2. There's controversal information about aftredeath experience of accidentally (violently) killed people. Some sources say, that their experience doesn't much differ from those who died by "his own death" (E. Barker). Some say, though, that those are kept in "cataleptical" state till their "natural death" time will come and only then wake up for astral life (M. Heindel). What do you think? Maybe you know some experience of your friends which may prove one theory and deny the other. W/best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet Address for personal replies: Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru From jem@vnet.net Wed Aug 14 05:44:30 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 01:44:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199608140544.BAA17809@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: theosophy texts on-line hi - there is an e-mail list (discussion list) set up to help people coordinate the electronic publishing of theosophical texts. (Thesophical Electronic Clearing House) it is called THEOS-TECH the name comes from John Algeo's concept of an electronic theosophical clearing house (tech). I hope he did not copyright the acronym TECH. else we will be in yet another legal battle. (i.e. the list will be dissolved; I have not resources to fight any such nonsense). if people want to use it - feel free to do so. peace - john e. mead p.s. ramadoss's comment follows. this discussion list is where people who want to establish such can do so; between themselves, for eventual benefit to the theosophically inclined. p.p.s. note we can include within the theos-tech library on vnet, articles which help point people to the resources. > From: ramadoss@eden.com > Subject: ASCII Texts > Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960813191348.2ef7cb74@mail.eden.com> Hi With the increasing number of Theosophical Texts available on cyberspace, it would be a good idea to compile a catalog and provide the www or ftp information. So anyone interested in texts can look through a list and get anything that interests. From jem@vnet.net Wed Aug 14 05:54:29 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 01:54:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199608140554.BAA18040@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: theosophy defined ? hi - theosophy comes from theo sophia (god wisdom). theosophists are people interested in theosophy. so, .... am I dumb, or are we arguing about what does not exist?? there is no exact theosophy --- by definition. each religion believes what it does. theosophists just study it. where is the problem?? it is probabaly buried in someones self defined belief; better yet EGO. 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 Wed Aug 14 11:21:45 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 06:21:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Sri Aurobindo In-Reply-To: <199608140452.AA17081@angel.elektra.ru> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Macnev Uri wrote: > > For: Maxim Osinovsky > Subject: Sri Aurobindo > > m> I post a complete text of Sri Aurobindo's small book (lecture notes?) > > But it doesn't prove that Sri Aurobindo belongs to theosophical > tradition. Terms used there don't match in meaning with theosophical > ones. More than that, it controverses with Bhagavad-gita in some > points. A point of side interest. Aurobindo had a poem written about KH. I believe he was told by KH that Aurobindo's line was different. MKR From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 14 11:48:15 1996 Date: 14 Aug 96 07:48:15 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Theosophist versus TS member Message-Id: <960814114814_72724.413_FHP32-2@CompuServe.COM> I think it is very important to make a distinction between being a theosophist and being a member of the Theosophical Society. As we can see from the discussion going on entitled ( "Theosophist" a fighting word), there is no general agreement about what makes one a theosophist. Certainly the word predates the modern theosophical movement by a long time. I call the importance of the distinction between being a theosophist and being a member of the Theosophical Society to your attention because I believe it is what has been behind the expulsion of national sections (i.e. Yugoslavia, Denmark) from the Theosophical Society (Adyar) and the expulsion of a local Lodge (i.e.Boston) from the Theosophical Society in America. We take too lightly the only requirement for membership in the Theosophical Society, which is to be in sympathy with the 3 declared objects. Those objects specifically encourage the comparative study of religion, philosophy and science; and the investigation of unexplained laws of nature and powers latent in humanity. When those comparative studies and investigations have led a national section or local lodge to want to more thoroughly delve into a particular study, i.e. the Alice Bailey teachings, this has brought down upon them, the wrath of the theosophical leadership, and that leadership is then in direct violation of the 3 declared objects. As soon as that leadership begins to object to what is studied, they then begin to define what is appropriate for study. This cannot be done if the 3 declared objects of the Theosophical Society are to have any meaning. If my postings dwell on this subject, it is because I see it as the single most important problem facing the theosophical movement. The Theosophical Society, continually shrinking, in the face of a greatly rising interest in esoteric studies throughout the world, will continue to shrink so long as the leadership disregards the 3 declared objects, even while paying lip service to them. From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 14 12:37:51 1996 Date: 14 Aug 96 08:37:51 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Blavatsky & Beatles Message-Id: <960814123751_72723.2375_FHP59-1@CompuServe.COM> Konstantin: > Imho 1980 was a significant year. Many musicians, including J. Lennon, died, many rock groups were dissolved. >Even disco was other, more suitable, before 1980. Does >anybody know, what happened in 1980? Maybe some new astrolo- >gical period began? > A contrary, computer age began in 1980 or 1979. Since compu- >ters are known long ago, only then they began play a big part. . . You bring up a good point here. I looked at it astrologically by checking what signs the planets were transiting, but I couldn't find anything. Maybe someone better than I could explain why music went from being creative and spiritual to crass commercialism. In the USA, the music of the 80's reflected the interests of the yuppies and the Reagan administration: the quick accumulation of wealth with no thought to tomorrow. In 1980 I switched from the graphic arts field to computers, but I never thought I was part of a mass trend. I just fell in love with them and found one could do graphic arts and layout easier and faster on a computer. -Ann E. Bermingham From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Aug 14 13:36:59 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:36:59 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608141444.KAA08409@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Theosophist, a fighting word Addendum to Bee's very clear & cogent statement, which says in part: >We all live in our own 'private world' and somehow seem to expect others to >live in a similar 'private world' but this is not so. With a little careful >observation and attention to what others say and do, it becomes quite >obvious that their 'world' operates in a different way to our own. This is what Serge King discussed with us under the name of "Should Rule", which I think is really an apt name for it. He said we continually think that other people *should* act according to our rules, but they don't, because as Bee says "their world operates in a different way to our own." I have to continually remind myself of that, it's one of my greatest sins, because people continually don't act the way I think they should. Then I get mad. They go along their merry way, because, according to them they haven't done anything to be ashanmed of, and I stay mad. So I'm not hurting anyone but myself. Yours for lesser & lesser should rules. Liesel From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Aug 14 14:45:28 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 10:45:28 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608141445.KAA19993@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Jesus 2000 Someone on another list I read forwarded to me a nine-part post on a followup discussion about the identity of Jesus, with the same participants as the Jesus 2000 conference in Oregon a while back. This was in New York and included Borg, Crossan, Johnson and others. If anyone on theos-l cares to see this transcription of the proceedings, let me know and I will pass it along. Cheers Paul From liesel@dreamscape.com Wed Aug 14 13:48:53 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:48:53 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608141455.KAA09200@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Fightn words Dear James Re: >What does anyone else have to say to Paul's suggestion "that questioning, >explicitly or implicitly, whether or not someone is a "real Theosophist" be >considered off limits in our discourse." It's interesting how closely Paul >redefines E.S. Rules #5 and #6: 1. I'm all in favor of Paul's suggestion. It goes along with mine to drop the whole argument as being unproductive. 2. I'm not in favor of running theos-l by ES rules. The ES is a closed organization with a hierarchy, and we're an open organization trying to operate on democratic principles. ES members are welcome to participate, but on an equal footing. If they want to operate their organizatiion on certain principles, that's their business. I'm not for theos-l being an imitation of the ES. I'd prefer it, if we made up our own rules. Liesel From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Wed Aug 14 15:16:54 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:16:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Sri Aurobindo In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > A point of side interest. Aurobindo had a poem written about KH. I > believe he was told by KH that Aurobindo's line was different. Doss, This should be an interesting connection. Could you please post an exact reference for the benefit of those on this list who may be interested in it? (I have an access to Centenary 30-vol. edition of complete works by S.A.) Thanks, Max From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Aug 14 15:23:40 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:23:40 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960814112339_384677604@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Authorial reluctance Paul, I never talk about my works in progress because I usually have no idea what they will be like until they are finished. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Aug 14 15:25:43 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:25:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960814112542_384677660@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Authorial reluctance Doss, With electronic publishing the authors would never get paid! Chuck From uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Wed Aug 14 15:34:08 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:34:08 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Message-Id: <199608141641.AA21858@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Theosophical Discussion on IRC There will be an interactive theosophical discussion on the Internet this Sunday, on the IRC: Host: davis.dal.net Port: 6667 Room: #Theosophy Time: 8:30 AM PDT (3:30 PM GMT) Stop by and say "hi" if you have time. From wichm@xs4all.nl Wed Aug 14 18:19:30 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:19:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608141819.UAA16834@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Martin's closing words Fine that we have come to know each other's point of view. I'm sure we will not move an inch from our position. Nineteenth century' Theosophy is to me a belief that did a lot of good to jolt people out of outworn concepts. I think that the grandour of its vision could lead people to take greater responsibility for their lives and life in general. It could change the nihilistic outlook of the young generation. Having said that I feel that, if we wish to move on, we have to discard clinging to old Theosophic concepts and open ourselves up to new perceptions of reality and especially to a new approach to receiving Grace from within in all humility. What I like in this discussiongroup is that many contributors look in the same direction, each working on a slightly different wavelength, though. Sometimes I detect a defeatist cry that Theosophy has not fulfilled its promises. Although that is true, on the other hand Theosophy became the craddle of the New Age movement, practically all ideas being taken from her without due reference. (Some would say that she was paid back in her own coin!) MICHAEL From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Aug 14 21:01:00 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:01:00 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960814170059_501394623@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophical Discussion on IRC Love to, but 6:30 in the morning is when I'm usually just getting to sleep. But if I can wake up, I'll be there. Chuck the Heretic From apriorip@earthlink.net Wed Aug 14 22:28:24 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:28:24 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <32125308.49B8@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: On the Nature of Space (Theosophy & Science) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On the Nature of Space "The eternal parent wrapped in her ever-invisible robes had slumbered once again for seven eternities. "Time was not, for it lay asleep in the infinite bosom of duration. ... "Alone the one form of existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, in dreamless sleep; and life pulsated unconscious in universal space, throughout that all-presence which is sensed by the opened eye of the Dangma." The Secret Doctrine, Cosmogenesis, 27. Modern astronomical researchers are delving more and more into the qualities and effects of cosmic processes. In truth space is n-dimensional and is an evolving entity about which we are beginning to learn the A-B-C's. The current scientific determination that astronomical observations support the "big bang" theory of creation is most interesting and can tell us much about modern thought and where it is going. The observations which are being made are being interpreted in a three dimensional spatial context. But the energies which are being observed are actually part of etheric processes which reflect higher spatial dimensional relationships. In fact what is being observed is a three-dimensional reflection of four and five and higher dimensional spatial relationships. This reflection can make it appear that everything in the universe came from a central point just as our image in a mirror appears to be flat. But the conclusions which are being made from the observations of cosmic energies are the same as if we conclude from observing ourselves in a mirror that we are flat. Galaxies and groups of galaxies and whole fields of space are created by higher dimensional cosmic processes which at present cannot even be imagined by the best minds of humanity. The great sciences of cosmic beings are as far beyond us as nuclear physics is beyond an amoeba. Nevertheless by analogy and correspondence we can gain some sense of the next steps in our understanding of the origins of the universe. Science as a process of learning, under the impression of the intuition, will through experimental understanding help liberate humanity from the materialistic identifications and provide a practical means for humanity to cooperate with spatial energies. "... four fundamental postulates which must be admitted by the student ... as providing an hypothesis worthy of his consideration and trial. ... These postulates might be enumerated as follows and are given in the order of their importance: "I. First, that there exists in our manifested universe the expression of an Energy of Life which is the responsible cause of the diverse forms and the vast hierarchy of sentient beings who compose the sum total of all that is. ... " II. ... the one Life, manifesting through matter, produces a third factor which is consciousness. ... This is the Theory of Self-determination or the teaching that all the lives of which the one life is formed, in their sphere and in their state of being, become, ..., grounded in matter and assume forms whereby their peculiar specific state of consciousness may be realized and the vibration stabilized; thus they may know themselves as existences. .. "III. The third basic postulate is that the object for which life takes form and the purpose of manifested being is the unfoldment of consciousness, or the revelation of the soul. This might be called the Theory of the Evolution of Light. ... "IV. The fourth postulate consists of the statement that all lives manifest cyclically. This is the Theory of Re-birth of or re-incarnation, the demonstration of the law of periodicity. .." (A Treatise on White Magic, pp. 7-10.) Love, Patrick *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 14 23:25:12 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:25:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: No rules In-Reply-To: <199608141455.KAA09200@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608141455.KAA09200@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >2. I'm not in favor of running theos-l by ES rules. The ES is a closed >organization with a hierarchy, and we're an open organization trying to >operate on democratic principles. ES members are welcome to participate, but >on an equal footing. If they want to operate their organizatiion on certain >principles, that's their business. I'm not for theos-l being an imitation of >the ES. I'd prefer it, if we made up our own rules. > >Liesel .. and being an unmoderated list, theos-l does not need and cannot have any rules (not while John Mead, bless his cotton socks) remains the list owner :-) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Aug 15 06:31:08 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:31:08 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960815063108.0068e6e4@imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophical Discussion on IRC At 04:59 PM 8/14/96 -0400, you wrote: >Love to, but 6:30 in the morning is when I'm usually just getting to sleep. >But if I can wake up, I'll be there. > >Chuck the Heretic > Good news. You've got your times backwards. It's 10:30 AM Sunday *your* time. You're later in the day than the pacific coast. From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 15 00:01:14 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:01:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960814200114_501541943@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Blavatsky & Beatles Ann, I don't know what caused the change in music, but as my tastes run to punk-industrial it was good riddance to bad rubbish as far as I'm concerned. The Beatles never failed to turn my stomach. There is something about trying to mix the spiritual and music that, at least in the West, died with Bach and Handel. Everything tried in the sixties and after came, and comes, off terribly phoney and sappy. None of it is worth listening to. You were lucky you missed that idiot who performed at summer school. Given that, it is no wonder that the public would quickly lose any taste for the sort of hypocritical garbage the Beatles and their followers tried to foist on them and listen to things that made them feel something human, joy, anger, pain, pleasure in all its many forms. Chuck the Heretic From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 15 00:24:05 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:24:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <8MWZqVAl4mEyEw3n@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Java script In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960814031714.00697294@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <1.5.4.32.19960814031714.00697294@whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >COFFEE.EXE missing - Insert Cup and Press Any Key! Error - coffee not found [Abort?] [Retry?] [Fail?] --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 15 00:38:42 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:38:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Views on reincarnation In-Reply-To: <199608140452.AA17082@angel.elektra.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608140452.AA17082@angel.elektra.ru>, Macnev Uri writes > >For: Dr. A.M.Bain >Subject: views on reincarnation > >> I was in a 1st World War aircraft, and was shot down (1918). >> Reborn in 1933 with an otherwise unaccountably emotional attachment to >> songs of WWI. > So, please reply to my previous letter about afterdeath experience - >did you awake in astral plan immediately after death? My experience was a memory i discovered in *this* life. The memory (if such it was) ended abruptly with a seeming blow to the chest (piloting the aircraft, age about 18). > Also you can prove or refute E.Barker - does she describe properly >world war 1 view from astral? I do not know of E.Barker, so cannot express an opinion. > >W/best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet > Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 15 03:43:19 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:43:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: On the Nature of Space (Theosophy & Science) In-Reply-To: <32125308.49B8@earthlink.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > Modern astronomical researchers are delving more and more into the qualities and effects > of cosmic processes. In truth space is n-dimensional and is an evolving entity about which we > are beginning to learn the A-B-C's. > > The current scientific determination that astronomical observations support the "big > bang" theory of creation is most interesting and can tell us much about modern thought and > where it is going. The observations which are being made are being interpreted in a three > dimensional spatial context. But the energies which are being observed are actually part of > etheric processes which reflect higher spatial dimensional relationships. In fact what is being > observed is a three-dimensional reflection of four and five and higher dimensional spatial > relationships. This reflection can make it appear that everything in the universe came from a > central point just as our image in a mirror appears to be flat. But the conclusions which are > being made from the observations of cosmic energies are the same as if we conclude from > observing ourselves in a mirror that we are flat. Galaxies and groups of galaxies and whole > fields of space are created by higher dimensional cosmic processes which at present cannot > even be imagined by the best minds of humanity. The great sciences of cosmic beings are as > far beyond us as nuclear physics is beyond an amoeba. Nevertheless by analogy and > correspondence we can gain some sense of the next steps in our understanding of the origins > of the universe. > > Science as a process of learning, under the impression of the intuition, will through > experimental understanding help liberate humanity from the materialistic identifications and > provide a practical means for humanity to cooperate with spatial energies. Patrick, Your quotes from H.P.Blavatsky and A.A.Bailey are excellent, but what's their relation to science? As far as I know, observations supporting the hypothesis of higher spatial dimensions do not exist (yet). Yes, there are some theories based on the idea of 5- or 6-dimensional continuum (like Kaluza-Klein theories) or even 11 dimensions (string models), but all that remains on the level of science fiction, so it's better not to use that stuff to draw parallels between theosophy and science. Max From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 15 04:14:47 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:14:47 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960815001446_179344965@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Theosophical Discussion on IRC Eldon, It's been a backwards week. I'll be there from my Netcom account (chuck27). Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 15 04:29:43 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:29:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960815001850_179344873@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: No rules Rules=Bad No Rules=Good Sign in Dr. Psionic's consulting room and monster making facility: "Learn the Rules Break the Rules" Chuck the Heretic From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 15 06:43:58 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:43:58 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960815014753.1e17cca0@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Theosophist versus TS member We have discussed the cancellation of charters in various countries such as Canada, Denmark, Yugoslavia etc. It appears that one common factor in all these sections is the money and property held by the TS. If there is no money, I think no one will care what a group studies or believes or follows. This also brings up another issue. That of bequeathing property to TS. Anyone planning to bequeath or donate, should carefully think and decide how one can protect the funds being used for the specific objective of the donor/bequeather. MKR ********************** end of message ***************** From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 15 06:55:20 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:55:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Netiquette Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I have recently subscribed to a moderated email discussion group. I thought it would be interesting to Theos-L subscribers to see how other discussion groups try to cope with the problems the electronic exchange generates. (All references specific to the group are deleted.) Max ---------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: The purpose of ..... is to be a general means of communication among this online community, to allow its members to discuss varied topics, keep informed of events and to keep in touch one with another. WHO ARE WE?: ..... does not represent any one physical community or organization, nor does it present itself as the official online voice for any one person or group of persons. Each participant is free to hold and express differing ideas on all subjects, including ...., this yoga, other teachers, etc. ON-LINE ETIQUETTE: At the same time we strive for and expect each member of ..... to maintain the highest standard of discussion and interaction. .... is designed to be a free and open discussion group. However participants who repeatedly attempt to disrupt the group with personal agendas, ideologies that are deeply at odds with the aims of the group, or other hostile behavior may not be allowed to continue. Removal of a person from the list will only be used as a last resort, if a person is unresponsive to reasonable requests or persists in posting messages that are deemed to be disruptive to ..... COLLECTIVE YOGA: Each person is expected to be fair, respectful, and compassionate in his/her dealings with the others on this forum. Further, we see this forum and group as an opportunity to practice a collective sadhana [yogic practice], which means offering our actions here to the Divine for uplifting and transformation. COMPLAINTS: Complaints about individual participants, if seen to be serious, will be reviewed by an informal moderating group. This group consists of people who have been involved over time in serving the needs of this on-line community. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: If you have a complaint about the way the list is being handled, or the conduct of one of its members, please privately (and politely!) contact the individual with whom you have a disagreement. If you are unable to achieve a resolution of your dispute individually, then contact ....., who will forward your complaint to the Moderating group. If complaints are seen as serious or numerous enough, a Group member will try to see if the parties in dispute can work it out amongst themselves first. If not, and if the complaints continue, the Moderating group will take it up. All participants on the list will have an opportunity to voice their feelings on the matter at hand. The Moderating Group, using all the information available, will then attempt to reach a consensus on the matter. If a consensus is reached that a member is completely incompatible with the purposes of the discussion group, that person may be removed from the list. We have kept things as informal as possible while maintaining some structure, in order to keep the process open and flexible to changing circumstances and conditions, while trusting in the general goodwill of all concerned. QUOTING: We urge everyone who uses quotations and references from books and publications to provide specific sources for them. This will be helpful for those that would like to read the source material for themselves and also minimize speculation and mistakes. From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 15 06:59:08 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:59:08 -0500 (CDT) From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960815020303.23cf207c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Sri Aurobindo At 11:18 AM 8/14/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > >> A point of side interest. Aurobindo had a poem written about KH. I >> believe he was told by KH that Aurobindo's line was different. > >Doss, > >This should be an interesting connection. Could you please post an exact >reference for the benefit of those on this list who may be interested in it? >(I have an access to Centenary 30-vol. edition of complete works >by S.A.) > >Thanks, Max > Hi Max: I do not have the reference on hand. It was over 20 years ago I recall seeing it in a collection of poems written by Aurobindo. It should be in the complete works you have access to. I do not exactly recall the title of poem. Next time I go to the local TS Lodge, I will see if I can find it. MKR ********************** end of message ***************** From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 15 07:18:19 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:18:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Theosophist versus TS member In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960815014753.1e17cca0@mail.eden.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > We have discussed the cancellation of charters in various countries such as > Canada, Denmark, Yugoslavia etc. It appears that one common factor in all > these sections is the money and property held by the TS. If there is no > money, I think no one will care what a group studies or believes or follows. > > This also brings up another issue. That of bequeathing property to TS. > Anyone planning to bequeath or donate, should carefully think and decide how > one can protect the funds being used for the specific objective of the > donor/bequeather. Doss, This is a good point. It would help maintain flexibility. All people are different--some love theosophical orthodoxy (which is not necessarily a dirty word, it may mean concern about preserving a good tradition) and would not be willing to support new-age-like activities, some others like innovative (which may mean "weird") ideas and may not be willing to see their funds going to reinforcing theosophical fundamentalism. See how GOP is trying to strike the balance at their convention at San Diego... So it's not a conspiracy or someone's evil will: it's the bell curve that has the left wing, the right wing, and the body in the middle... A real-life problem... From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 15 07:35:02 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:35:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Sri Aurobindo In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960815020303.23cf207c@mail.eden.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > >> A point of side interest. Aurobindo had a poem written about KH. I > > > seeing it in a collection of poems written by Aurobindo. It should be in the Doss and everyone else, May I humbly suggest using "Sri Aurobindo" or "Aurobindo Ghose" as a right form of address. "Aurobindo" somehow seems to be inappropriate. People in this country tend to respect earned (vs. just inherited) titles like "Judge," "Dr." and so on. I believe same rule should apply to such titles as "Master" (e.g. "Master K.H.") or, if the word 'master' jars every bone in someone's body, one may use a substitute like "Mahatma" (e.g. "Mahatma K.H.")--this is earned, too, not inherited. Max From apriorip@earthlink.net Thu Aug 15 10:37:26 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 05:37:26 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <3212FDE6.7E8F@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: On the Nature of Space (Theosophy & Science) References: <199608150512.AA25446@vnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Your quotes from H.P.Blavatsky and A.A.Bailey are excellent, but what's >their relation to science? The point being made has to do with the theosophical perspective as to the nature of space and the indication that current scientific theories are misinterpreting observations from a three dimensional perspective (in particular the big bang theory is quite incorrect). In "Cosmogenesis" HPB refers to the higher dimensionality of matter in space as a property different from its extensibility in three dimensions. Cheers, Patrick *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From wichm@xs4all.nl Thu Aug 15 11:59:15 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:59:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608151159.NAA14731@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: reply to Konstantin ate: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:47:36 Michael writes: w> After Einstein multi-dimensional personalities emerged (Seth). w> It is remarkable that these subjects were almost ignored by the Masters. Konstantin answers: < It's a lie. C.Leadbeater described multidimentional worlds and I have met a number of Tibetan monks, some from the inner circle of the w> Dalai Lama. I was always tempted to tell them about the Theosophic Masters.etc. KONSTANTIN:> So why did he take part in 100th T.S. anniversary? MICHAEL: May be because he would find warm sympathy amongst Theosophists for Tibet's cause. I should be very interested to be informed of a comment by him on the existence of a White Brotherhood in Tibet. Incidentally, the account of Baird Spalding on his meeting them was probably all phantasized (booze). MICHAEL> Then there is the development of the handwriting and grammar (Russian w> grammatical mistakes). Admittedly many were explained by her, but rather KONSTANTIN:>These mistakes could be made by anyone whose native language >has an archaic grammatic structure. These languages are sanskrit, all >slavic languages except bulgarian, languages of baltic countries, >latin, etc. and partially spanish and portugues. (You can see here >letters from Brazil which are written like mine. They might be trans- >lated to russian without changing word order. "Unveiled Isis" vs "Isis >Unveiled" - this corresponds also to a russian title of this book). >Only few languages have such a weird grammar as english has. Michael: This would mean that these masters(Egypt & Tibet) learnt English in the same pace as Mme. Blavatsky did! I wonder whether you have read the early communications from the Brotherhood of Luxor to HPB as related in Old Diary Leaves? From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 15 13:13:46 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:13:46 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608151313.PAA06289@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Authorial reluctance Paul wrote: >Martin, in today's digest, mentions that published authors on the list have been reluctant to go into detail about their works in progress. I only remember one question about mine, and thought my response sufficiently detailed. If anyone cares to ask anything more about my approach to Cayce, feel free. Perhaps this reference didn't include me, however. Paul: let me rephrase my remark in a positive way. I think that the knowledgeable authors on this list could perform a great service to others on this list when they summarized some of their findings. As there are many systems, authors, etc. pertaining to the spiritual and one cannot study them all, such summaries can speed up our understanding of what's available in this world today and broaden our perspective on things considerably. It would also provide some interesting fuel to discussions. My reference included you too, as I have asked you before to give some more info on Cayce, which you did not like to do at that time. But you say now that you're willing to provide more info about your approach, which is a new development to me. So, I for one would value that highly if you would tell us something about the perspective that Cayce offers on spirituality. The other person I had in mind is Alan, with whom I have had some E-mail exchanges already. I understand now that his kabbalistic system requires a certain background which makes it difficult to discuss it with others who don't have this background. Anyway, he is willing to discuss things where feasible, so the matter seems resolved now. P>I hope this makes clearer the position in which authors find themselves, whether or not it is relevant to the case at hand. Sure. It's clear enough although not relevant to my point. Martin From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 15 13:35:13 1996 Date: 15 Aug 96 09:35:13 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: To Cos: Beatles & Rules Message-Id: <960815133512_72723.2375_FHP65-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >I don't know what caused the change in music, but as my tastes run to >punk-industrial it was good riddance to bad rubbish as far as I'm concerned. > The Beatles never failed to turn my stomach. >There is something about trying to mix the spiritual and music that, at least >in the West, died with Bach and Handel. Everything tried in the sixties and >after came, and comes off terribly phoney and sappy. None of it is worth >listening to. As they say, to each his own. But this reminds of a story I'd heard about Olcott, going back many years to the seventies. It was at a Theosofest or whatever, a jazz-oriented group was booked to play. When they started to play, several members got up and left because of the music. The person telling the story told me one woman said her husband had to do an exorcism on her from the ill effects of the music. I encountered this disapproval of modern music when I played a Todd Rundgren song and McCartney's Long & Winding Road at an LCC retreat. While the rest of the people loved it, an older and well-respected member of TS told me loudly and publicly that she hated the Beatles tune and thought the Rundgren stuff was OK. I've always wondered if there is a bias (perhaps fading?) among Theosophists towards classical and traditional music. That popular music was considered not only low-class, but down right dangerous. If I played my screaming heavy metal albums by Steve Vai in the parking lot at Olcott, would someone come out screaming worse than the CD? : - ) What I'm asking here is whether there is some official policy or prounouncement on music by TS? Were there originally prounouncements and recommendations made by past leaders? (I'd bet money Leadbeater had his recommendations - he had em' about everything else.) As for rules, well, I would think that all the people on this list are plenty old enough to be responsible for themselves. If not, somebody else can tell them to get their act together. -Ann E. Bermingham From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 15 14:41:45 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:41:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Sri Aurobindo In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi You have a good point. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Maxim Osinovsky wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > > >> A point of side interest. Aurobindo had a poem written about KH. I > > > > > seeing it in a collection of poems written by Aurobindo. It should be in the > > Doss and everyone else, > > May I humbly suggest using "Sri Aurobindo" or "Aurobindo Ghose" as a right > form of address. "Aurobindo" somehow seems to be inappropriate. > > People in this country tend to respect earned (vs. just inherited) titles > like "Judge," "Dr." and so on. I believe same rule should apply to such > titles as "Master" (e.g. "Master K.H.") or, if the word 'master' jars > every bone in someone's body, one may use a substitute like "Mahatma" > (e.g. "Mahatma K.H.")--this is earned, too, not inherited. > > Max > From RIhle@aol.com Thu Aug 15 15:21:59 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:21:59 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960815112159_502005799@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: On the Nature of Space (Theosophy & Science) Patrick quotes Alice Bailey> >" II. ... the one Life, manifesting through matter, produces a third factor which is >consciousness. ... Richard Ihle writes> Some interesting material, Patrick. I could not help but notice, however, that in the above quote AB appears to deviate from what, in my opinion at least, is the most significant premise of the Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP)--viz. that Undifferentiated Consciousness (~Brahman~/~Atman~/~Purusa~) PRECEDES matter and is certainly NOT PRODUCED by it as is the view of most of modern scientific thinking. Looked at in a different way, of course, the evolution of matter into simple biological forms and then into human beings can be thought of as "producing" all the different possibilities for "differentiated states of consciousnessness"; however, this may be more properly regarded as a "tainting" of Undifferentiated Consciousness by means of "interaction" with matter (more properly: Purusa "in association with" ~Prakriti~) and its physical, emotional, and mental "evolutes" rather than an actual "epi-creation" of matter. While it is altogether likely that many parts of the PTP may be "re-worked" to show their compatibility with modern evolutionary perspectives, it appears doubtful that the PTP will ever be willing to give up its transcendentally derived fundamental premise . And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated Consciousness comes FIRST. With the possible exception of Alice Bailey, am I wrong in thinking that this is the "majority opinion" among theosophists? Thanks, again, Patrick and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 15 15:12:18 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:12:18 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Jesus 2000 In-Reply-To: <199608141445.KAA19993@leo.vsla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608141445.KAA19993@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >Someone on another list I read forwarded to me a nine-part post >on a followup discussion about the identity of Jesus, with the >same participants as the Jesus 2000 conference in Oregon a >while back. This was in New York and included Borg, Crossan, >Johnson and others. If anyone on theos-l cares to see this >transcription of the proceedings, let me know and I will pass >it along. > >Cheers >Paul To me, please :-) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From liesel@dreamscape.com Thu Aug 15 16:54:12 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:54:12 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608151801.OAA28986@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: On the nature of space Dear Patrick, You're the first one I've come across who mentions that creation is multidimensional. This is what my Teacher, Harry Van Gelder said. He talked about there being at least 6 dimensions, & he sounded to me as if he had some concrete knowledge of it. I never understood what he was talking about. I understand 3 dimensions, because that's what's tangible to me. You say that life manifesting through matter produces consciousness. That's not quite the way I see it. I believe that consciousness manifests in matter, because it needs a form to manifest in or through. Shalom Liesel From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 15 18:43:26 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:43:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: On the nature of space In-Reply-To: <199608151801.OAA28986@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear Patrick, > > You're the first one I've come across who mentions that creation is > multidimensional. This is what my Teacher, Harry Van Gelder said. He talked > about there being at least 6 dimensions, & he sounded to me as if he had > some concrete knowledge of it. I never understood what he was talking about. > I understand 3 dimensions, because that's what's tangible to me. According to modern physics, space (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension) are inseparable, so they form a 4-dimensional continuum. This is something that may be verified experimentally, although the inseparability of space and time manifests itself only at very high speeds (at least 10,000 times the speed limit on our highways), or in very strong gravitational fields (unattainable in the ordinary circumstances). Everyone who talks about higher dimensions should define in a clear manner what s/he is talking about. No further spatio-temporal dimensions are known at this time. On the other hand, one may attach a dimension to any quantifiable quality and so speak about other dimensions, e.g. 3-dimensional space of colors. Expressions such as 'dimensions of thought' are, however, to be considered as being metaphorical as one cannot indicate any quantitative parameter(s) involved therein. > You say that life manifesting through matter produces consciousness. That's > not quite the way I see it. I believe that consciousness manifests in > matter, because it needs a form to manifest in or through. I think there is no contradiction between these two views. According to a certain theory, there are actually two manifestations involved in human constitution and in some other things: First the spirit contacts the matter, and in such a way consciousness is born aided by a Manasaputra (this is what Patrick was talking about as Alice Bailey often uses the term Life as synonymous with 'spirit'), and then consciousness seeks the form expression, and generates a string of personalities (like beads on the sutratma) to get material experience (perhaps this is what Liesel referred to). This double relationship is reflected in the triad, spirit-soul-personality. From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 15 19:35:58 1996 Date: 15 Aug 96 15:35:58 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Authorial reluctance (to Paul) Message-Id: <960815193558_76400.1474_HHL45-2@CompuServe.COM> >Martin, in today's digest, mentions that published authors on >the list have been reluctant to go into detail about their >works in progress. I only remember one question about mine, >and thought my response sufficiently detailed. If anyone cares >to ask anything more about my approach to Cayce, feel free. Perhaps >this reference didn't include me, however. Maybe it was me? I don't like to talk about it, mainly because my new book (out yesterday) is more magic than Theosophy. In fact, it is a blend of Enochian Magic and Tantricism, two no-no's in theosophical circles, so I naturally am "reluctant" to talk about it. I did, however, mention to Paul last year that the publisher changed the title on me. The title is "The Angel's Message to Humanity" and has a nice angel on the cover (my publisher says that angels are "big" nowdays and sell well). Of course, I was not aware, at the time, that another whole year would pass before it was published. Don't ask me what the angel's message is, though. It is probably different for each person. Anyway, it is my first book with Ph.D. on it, and it is, IMO, my most scholarly book to date. However, I agree with Ken Wilber that it is impossible to answer all of the mail that comes in. For example, I have lots of folks write and ask me to explain Enochian Magic to them. Now, I have just published my 7th book on the subject, and they want to explain it all in one personal letter. Ah well. Paul, hope your book is going well. Jerry S. Member, TI From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 15 20:44:49 1996 Date: 15 Aug 96 16:44:49 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Theosophy defined Message-Id: <960815204448_72723.2375_FHP68-1@CompuServe.COM> John M: >theosophy comes from theo sophia (god wisdom). >theosophists are people interested in theosophy. Sounds good to me! Better than trying to catch it with a butterfly net, pin it to the wall and build a fence around - which is how I interpret fundamentalist Theosophy. - Ann E. Bermingham From olcott@cedar.cic.net Thu Aug 15 21:10:20 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:10:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: To Cos: Beatles & Rules In-Reply-To: <960815133512_72723.2375_FHP65-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > I've always wondered if there is a bias (perhaps fading?) among Theosophists > towards classical and traditional music. That popular music was considered not > only low-class, but down right dangerous. If I played my screaming heavy metal > albums by Steve Vai in the parking lot at Olcott, would someone come out > screaming worse than the CD? : - ) > "Theosophists" (however you want to define this) vary in their musical tastes as much as any other people. I suppose if you played your heavy metal music at full volume in the Olcott parking lot, people would be just as annoyed as if I were to play Beethoven's Ninth or Wagnerian opera at full volume. Either way, it would be called "disturbance of the peace" because SOME people will be disturbed by the volume. Some residents at Olcott actually play heavy metal (in their room), others like popular, country Western, classical or whatever. The ground rule is: "Be considerate of the other people living here." Hey, we are PEOPLE, not some kind of saints! > What I'm asking here is whether there is some official policy or prounouncement > on music by TS? Were there originally prounouncements and recommendations made > by past leaders? (I'd bet money Leadbeater had his recommendations - he had em' > about everything else.) > I've certainly never seen any official policy or pronouncement in theosophical circles, or was ever told that any particular type of music is "better" than any other. I've heard numerous people express their own personal preferences, though, AS IF THEY WERE PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM SOME HIGHER AUTHORITY. Elisabeth Trumpler (someone who actually *lives* at Olcott) From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 15 21:13:31 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:13:31 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608152113.XAA13972@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Martin's closing words Micheal>Fine that we have come to know each other's point of view. I'm sure we will not move an inch from our position. Hm. I would be careful about drawing such a conclusion. You hardly know me. You can talk about your own position of course. In fact, I've moved to some degree during the last couple of months, so, your observation is inaccurate. Micheal>Nineteenth century' Theosophy is to me a belief that did a lot of good to jolt people out of outworn concepts. I think that the grandour of its vision could lead people to take greater responsibility for their lives and life in general. It could change the nihilistic outlook of the young generation. Having said that I feel that, if we wish to move on, we have to discard clinging to old Theosophic concepts Maybe you didn't notice, but a lot of people on this list are not 'plain old Theosophists'. Many have developed some ideas of their own, in an eclectic manner I'd say. So have I. Having said that, I'm still convinced that Theosophy contains many valuable teachings, whose import has hardly been digested by Western civilization. Michael> and open ourselves up to new perceptions of reality and especially to a new approach to receiving Grace from within in all humility. Why don't you give some examples of what you mean by that, Michael? That would make your position somewhat clearer (to me, at least). Micheal>Sometimes I detect a defeatist cry that Theosophy has not fulfilled its promises. Although that is true, on the other hand Theosophy became the craddle of the New Age movement, practically all ideas being taken from her without due reference. (Some would say that she was paid back in her own coin!) MICHAEL Yes, there's a strong impetus in the New Age movement. I noticed that emphasis is often on practical applications of some basic notions. Examples of these are the many groups that are involved in study and exercises pertaining to the ~Celestine Prophecy~ (experiential guide) and ~A course in miracles~, to name but two major influential books. I think that TSs can (and should) learn something from this fact! Martin From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 15 21:13:27 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:13:27 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608152113.XAA13954@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Martin's closing words Micheal>Fine that we have come to know each other's point of view. I'm sure we will not move an inch from our position. Hm. You cannot draw such a conclusion regarding my position, only regarding your own. In fact, I've moved to some degree during the last couple of months, so, your observation is inaccurate. Micheal>Nineteenth century' Theosophy is to me a belief that did a lot of good to jolt people out of outworn concepts. I think that the grandour of its vision could lead people to take greater responsibility for their lives and life in general. It could change the nihilistic outlook of the young generation. Having said that I feel that, if we wish to move on, we have to discard clinging to old Theosophic concepts Maybe you didn't notice, but a lot of people on this list are not 'plain old Theosophists'. Many have developed some ideas of their own, in an eclectic manner I'd say. So have I. Having said that, I'm still convinced that Theosophy contains many valuable teachings, whose import has hardly been digested by Western civilization. Michael> and open ourselves up to new perceptions of reality and especially to a new approach to receiving Grace from within in all humility. Why don't you give some examples of what you mean by that, Michael? That would make your position somewhat clearer (to me, at least). Micheal>Sometimes I detect a defeatist cry that Theosophy has not fulfilled its promises. Although that is true, on the other hand Theosophy became the craddle of the New Age movement, practically all ideas being taken from her without due reference. (Some would say that she was paid back in her own coin!) MICHAEL Yes, there's a strong impetus in the New Age movement. I noticed that emphasis is often on practical applications of some basic notions. Examples of these are the many groups that are involved in study and self-work pertaining to the ~Celestine Prophecy~ (experiential guide) and ~A course in miracles~, to name two major influential books. I think that TSs can (and should) learn something from this fact! Martin From RIhle@aol.com Thu Aug 15 22:47:17 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:47:17 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960815184716_457487053@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: On the nature of space Max writes> >I think there is no contradiction between these two views. According to >a certain theory, there are actually two manifestations involved >in human constitution and in some other things: First the spirit contacts >the matter, and in such a way consciousness is born aided by a >Manasaputra (this is what Patrick was talking about as Alice Bailey >often uses the term Life as synonymous with 'spirit'), and >then consciousness seeks the form expression, and generates a string of >personalities (like beads on the sutratma) to get material experience >(perhaps this is what Liesel referred to). This double relationship is >reflected in the triad, spirit-soul-personality. > Richard Ihle writes> I like a man who still has what it takes to jump into subjects like this. I continue to do so myself from time to time; however, I plan to quit completely in the near future: the deeper I try to delve into the possible Eastern origins for HPB's version of cosmogenenesis, the bigger headache I get. Of the "six Orthodox Schools" in Hindu philosophy (the three most important are Vedanta, Yoga, and Sankhya--I can't remember the other three), I have more or less concluded that THE SECRET DOCTRINE is probably most compatible with the "dualistic" Sankhya. The general idea with this is that existing UNCREATED from all eternity is the "material" ~Prakriti~ (Substance) on one "side" and the "immaterial" Purusa (Undifferentiated Consciousness, "Self," "Soul,") on the other. (Actually, I'm cheating a little by presenting it this way, since I think the prevailing point of view is that there are plural ~Souls~.) The interesting thing which contrasts somewhat with your above remarks is that in Sankya, ~Spirit~ is already a component of Substance--i.e., already included within the Prakriti side of things. Indeed, it is often said that it is the very fact of Spirit's ~material~ nature being so ultra-rarefied that it is indistinguishable from Self (Undifferentiated Consciousness) that we have the necessary "point of contamination" for all the forms of Self-delusion etc. So anyhow, looked at in this way it would not be so meaningful to say "spirit contacts matter and thus produces consciousness"--since according to this spirit is already matter, albeit the most unimaginably highest "gradient" of it. But--to save ibuprofen--at this point in thinking about these weighty things, I find myself more and more these days relying on a coin-flipping strategy: heads I'll go with Alice Bailey; tails it's Kapila. . . . Best wishes and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 15 23:16:57 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:16:57 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960815191655_502341529@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cos: Beatles & Rules Ann, My distaste for the Beatles long predates my interest in theosophy. I never could stand them. Aside from THEM, the problem I see with modern music and spirituality is not the music itself, but rather the peculiarly annoying and usually talentless mindset of those who try to create it. It has a cloying sappiness to it that makes me violently ill. I would infinitely prefer to hear heavy metal (particularly King Diamond) than that garbage. There is really nothing more annoying than some glorified bar act trying to act holy. Now as to the high weirdness of some TSers, one time at convention up at Lake Geneva I got so pissed about something that I went to my cabin and put Black Sabbath on my boom box, and cranked it! It was great fun and shocked the little old ladies to no end! Their prejudices probably go back to the lunatic ravings of Cyril Scott, a man of no talent himself and his very peculiar ideas (he wrote that Jazz was "Black Magic" which makes me wonder if Verdi is Italian Magick), reinforced by the overworked imaginings of poor, crazy Goeffrey Hodson who must surely have known what he was talking about after he saw the Virgin Mary appear to him on his bathroom door. (Where did they ever find that nutcase and why would anyone be DUMB enough to take him seriously?) A number of years ago, the education department actually produced a film on the subject which is so bad as to be funny. It is very rarely shown because the audiences inevitably laugh so hard that no one can hear the narration. So I propose that at the next convention you play your heavy metal and I'll play my punk-industrial and we'll see how long the old biddie network lasts before they start having seizures. And if someone plays the Beatles I will throw up all over him. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 15 23:18:47 1996 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:18:47 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960815191846_502342591@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: World Parliament of Religions--Again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.19680.emout09.mail.aol.com.840151126" --PART.BOUNDARY.0.19680.emout09.mail.aol.com.840151126 Content-ID: <0_19680_840151126@emout09.mail.aol.com.86327> Content-type: text/plain It seems that for some reason the TS is never going to get the 1993 World Parliament of Religions and as the lastest issue of the Quest appeared (on its way to the cat box) there was a review of a book about the overblown gathering. So, for the benefit of those who were so benighted as to have missed it, I am attaching a short little thing I wrote (it isn't very good, that's why I never expanded it for publication) about the Parliament. Have fun. Chuck the Heretic --PART.BOUNDARY.0.19680.emout09.mail.aol.com.840151126 Content-ID: <0_19680_840151126@emout09.mail.aol.com.86328> Content-type: application/octet-stream; name="REFLECT.DOC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 26UtAHhACQQAAAAALQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAEAAKcTAABsGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABcS AAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAABlAAAYAABlAGUYAAAAAGUY AAAAAGUYAAAAAGUYAAAAAGUYAAAOAHMYAAAuAKEYAAAAAKEYAAAAAKEYAAAAAKEYAAAMAK0Y AAAKALcYAAAKAKEYAAAAAMEYAAAoAOkYAAAAAOkYAAAWAP8YAAAAAP8YAAAAAP8YAAAAAP8Y AAAAAP8YAAAAAP8YAAAAAP8YAAACAAEZAAAAAAEZAAAAAAEZAAAAAAEZAAAAAAEZAAAAAAEZ AAAeAB8ZAAA0AFMZAAAZAB8ZAAAAAGUYAAAAAAAAAAAAAB8ZAAAAAB8ZAAAAAAAACgALAAEA AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAUkVGTEVDVElPTlMgT04gVEhFIFdPUkxEIFBBUkxJQU1FTlQgT0YgUkVMSUdJT05T DQpCeQ0KQ2hhcmxlcyBXLiBDb3NpbWFubw0KDQpJdCBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gYSBuaWdo dG1hcmUuDQpJdCBjZXJ0YWlubHkgYmVnYW4gdGhhdCB3YXkgd2l0aCB0aGUgb3BlbmluZyBw bGVuYXJ5IHRyYW5zbW9ncmlmaWVkIGludG8gYSBodW1hbiBjYXR0bGUgZHJpdmUuICBXaG8g a25ldyB3aGF0IGluY29tcGV0ZW50IHNvbiBvZiBhIGJpdGNoIGNhbWUgdXAgd2l0aCBpZGVh IG9mIGphbW1pbmcgNiw1MDAgcGVvcGxlIGludG8gYSBoYWxsIGFuZCB0aGVuIHRyeWluZyB0 byBsZXQgdGhlbSBpbnRvIHRoZSBiYWxscm9vbXMgZml2ZSBhdCBhIHRpbWUuICBTb21lIGlt YmVjaWxlLCBubyBkb3VidC4gIEJ1dCB0aGUgUGFybGlhbWVudCBwYWlkIGEgaGlnaCBwcmlj ZSBmb3IgaXQsIGZvciBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIG1hbnkgd2hvIGRpZCBub3QgZ2V0IGludG8gdGhl IG1haW4gYmFsbHJvb20gd2FzIGEgcmVwb3J0ZXIgZm9yIHRoZSBDaGljYWdvIFRyaWJ1bmUg YW5kIHRoZSByZXN1bHQgd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvdmVyYWdlIG9mIHRoZSBXb3JsZCBQYXJs aWFtZW50IG9mIFJlbGlnaW9ucyBpbiB0aGF0IHBhcGVyIHdhcywgc2hhbGwgd2Ugc2F5LCB1 bmRlcmRvbmUuDQpBbmQgaXQgZGlkIG5vdCBnZXQgYmV0dGVyIG9uY2Ugd2Ugd2VyZSBpbnNp ZGUsIHdpdGggdGhlIHVuZm9ydHVuYXRlIGJsZWF0aW5ncyBvZiB0aGUgTWF5b3Igb2YgQ2hp Y2FnbywgYSBtYW4gc28gdXR0ZXJseSBpbmFydGljdWxhdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyBhbWF6aW5n IHRoYXQgaGUgY2FuIHNpZ24gaGlzIG93biBuYW1lLCBibGlnaHRpbmcgdGhlIHJvb20gd2l0 aCBoaXMgcG9saXRpY2FsIHByZXNlbmNlLg0KSXQgY291bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGEgbmlnaHRt YXJlLg0KQnV0IGluIHNwaXRlIG9mIHRoZSBob3Jyb3Igb2YgdGhlIG9wZW5pbmcgcGxlbmFy eSwgc29tZXRoaW5nIHVudXN1YWwgd2FzIGhhcHBlbmluZyBhdCB0aGUgUGFsbWVyIEhvdXNl LiAgSW4gdGhlIG92ZXJmbG93IHJvb20sIGEgd29tYW4gZnJvbSB0aGUgQXJjaGRpb2Nlc2Ug b2YgQ2hpY2FnbyBhbmQgYSBtYW4gZnJvbSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIFBhZ2FuIGdyb3VwcyB3ZW50 IHRvZ2V0aGVyIHRvIGZpbmQgb3V0IHdoeSB0aGUgc291bmQgd2FzIHNvIGJhZC4gZHVyaW5n IHRoZSBOYXRpdmUgQW1lcmljYW4gcml0dWFsLiAoSXQgbGF0ZXIgdHVybmVkIG91dCB0aGF0 IG5vIG9uZSBvbiB0aGUgcGxhdGZvcm0gY291bGQgaGVhciB0aGVtIGVpdGhlci4pDQpQZW9w bGUgd2hvIHdlcmUgdG90YWwgc3RyYW5nZXJzIGhhZCBzdXBwZXIgdG9nZXRoZXIuICBTb21l dGhpbmcgZGlmZmVyZW50LCBzb21ldGhpbmcgbm90IGEgcGFydCBvZiBvdXIgbm9ybWFsIGV4 cGVyaWVuY2Ugd2FzIGhhcHBlbmluZy4NCkFub3RoZXIgaW5kaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBuaWdodG1h cmUsIHRoZSBldmVuaW5nIHBsZW5hcnksIGZlYXR1cmluZyBhIHBpdGlmdWwgbHVuYXRpYyB3 aG8gdGFsa3MgdG8gaGlzIGRlYWQgd2lmZSBhbmQgYSBidW5jaCBvZiB0aGUgbW9zdCBzZWxm LXJpZ2h0ZW91cywgcmVsaWdpb3VzLCBwc2V1ZG8tbGVhZGVycyBvbiBNb3RoZXIgRWFydGgg YXR0ZW1wdGluZyB0byBib3JlIGV2ZXJ5b25lIHRvIGRlYXRoLCBhbmQgZGFtbiBuZWFyIHN1 Y2NlZWRpbmcuICBJbWFnaW5lLCBpZiB5b3Ugd2lsbCwgdGhvdXNhbmRzIG9mIHBlb3BsZSBp biBhbiBhaXJsZXNzIGJhbGxyb29tLCBiZWluZyBzdWZmb2NhdGVkIGJ5IHBpb3VzIGhvdCBh aXIuICBUaGUgZXZlbmluZyB3YXMgYSBkaXNhc3RlciB3aGljaCBtYWRlIHRob3NlIG9mIHVz IHdobyBhY3R1YWxseSB3ZXJlIGZvb2xpc2ggZW5vdWdoIHRvIHNpdCBhbGwgdGhlIHdheSB0 aHJvdWdoIGNvbnNpZGVyIG91cnNlbHZlcyBsdWNreSB0byBiZSBhbGl2ZS4NCkFuZCB0aGVu IGNhbWUgU3VuZGF5LiAgV2hhdCBhIHBvdGVudGlhbCBkYXkgZm9yIHVubWl0aWdhdGVkIGFs YXJtaXNtIGFzIHRoZSBrZXlub3RlIG1vcm9uLCBHZXJhbGQgQmFybmV5LCBlc2NhcGVkIGZy b20gdGhlIGRpbm9zYXVyIHN1aXQgYW5kIHByb21vdGVkIGhpcyBwZWN1bGlhcmx5IGZhc2Np c3RpYyB2aXNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZS4gIENsZWFybHkgbm90IG9ubHkgaGFkIHRoZSBt YW4gaGFkIHNlZW4gVGhlIFJvYWQgV2FycmlvciBvbmUgdG9vIG1hbnkgdGltZXMsIGJ1dCBu byBvbmUgaGFkIGJvdGhlcmVkIHRvIHRlbGwgaGltIHRoYXQgaXQgd2FzIG9ubHkgYSBtb3Zp ZS4gIEJ5IFN1bmRheSBzdXBwZXIsIGl0IHdhcyBjbGVhciB0aGF0IG91ciB3b3JzdCBuaWdo dG1hcmVzIG1heSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gYWxsIHRvbyBtaWxkIGJ5IGNvbXBhcmlzb24uDQpZZXQg aXQgd2FzIHRoYXQgU3VuZGF5IGV2ZW5pbmcgdGhhdCB0aGUgZmlyc3QgbWlyYWNsZSBvY2N1 cnJlZC4gIEkgZm91bmQgbXlzZWxmIHNpdHRpbmcgYmVoaW5kIGEgQnVkZGhpc3QgbnVuIGZy b20gQXJrYW5zYXMsIG9mIGFsbCB0aGUgZ29kZm9yc2FrZW4gcGxhY2VzLCBhbmQgaXQgdHVy bmVkIG91dCwgdG8gYm90aCBvZiBvdXIgYW1hemVtZW50LCB0aGF0IHNoZSB3YXMgdGhlIHNp c3RlciBvZiBteSBzZW5pb3IgaGlnaCBzY2hvb2wgRW5nbGlzaCB0ZWFjaGVyISAgU3VjaCBl dmVudHMgZG8gbm90IG9jY3VyIGluIGV2ZXJ5ZGF5IGxpZmUuDQpBbmQgdGh1cyBpdCBiZWdh bi4gIEEgd2VlayB0aGF0IHByb21pc2VkIHRvIGJlIG5vdGhpbmcgbW9yZSB0aGFuIGEgZ2xv cmlvdXMgd2FzdGUgb2YgdGltZSB0dXJuZWQgaW50byBhIGZhc2NpbmF0aW5nIGV4ZXJjaXNl IGluIHRoZSBwb3RlbnRpYWwgb2YgcGVvcGxlIGZyb20gZGlmZmVyZW50IGJlbGllZnMgdG8g ZmluZCBhIGNvbW1vbiBncm91bmQsIGV2ZW4gaWYgdGhhdCBncm91bmQgd2FzIGRpc2d1c3Qg d2l0aCB0aGUgb3JnYW5pemVycyBvZiB0aGUgZXh0cmF2YWdhbnphIGFuZCBhIHJlYWxpemF0 aW9uIG9mIHRoZSB1dHRlciB1c2VsZXNzbmVzcyBvZiBsZWFkZXJzIGluIGEgd29ybGQgd2hl cmUgcGVvcGxlIGNhbiBjb21tdW5pY2F0ZSBhbW9uZyB0aGVtc2VsdmVzIHdpdGhvdXQgcG9t cG91cyBpbnRlcm1lZGlhcmllcy4NCkFzIHRoZSB3ZWVrIHdlbnQgb24gaXQgd2FzIGNsZWFy IHRoYXQgdGhpcyB3YXMgdG8gYmUgdGhlIGdyZWF0IGNvbWluZyBvdXQgcGFydHkgZm9yIHRo ZSAgUGFnYW5zIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JsZCwgdG8gdGhlIHVubWl0aWdhdGVkIGhvcnJvciBvZiB0 aGUgR3JlZWsgT3J0aG9kb3guICBJbiBzcGl0ZSBvZiB0aGUgdmVnZXRhcmlhbiBwcmVkaWxl Y3Rpb25zIG9mIG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIHBhcnRpY2lwYW50cywgcm9hc3QgQ2hyaXN0aWFuIHNl ZW1lZCB0byBiZSBhIHZlcnkgcG9wdWxhciBkaXNoIGFuZCB3YXMgc2VydmVkIGFsbCBvdmVy IHRoZSBQYWxtZXIgSG91c2UuICANCkFuZCBzbyBpdCBjb250aW51ZWQuICBUaGUgcGFydGlj aXBhbnRzLCBpbiB0aGVpciBvd24gd2F5LCB0b29rIG92ZXIgdGhlIGV2ZW50cyBpbiBhIHdh eSB0b3RhbGx5IHVuZm9yZXNlZW4gYnkgdGhlIG9yZ2FuaXppbmcgZ3JvdXAuICBUaGUgb2Zm aWNpYWwgUGFybGlhbWVudCwgd2l0aCBpdHMgcGxlbmFyaWVzIGFuZCBsZWFkZXJzIGFuZCBk aWN0YXRlZCBldGhpY3Mgc3RhdGVtZW50IHdhcyBwdXNoZWQgZmFydGhlciBhbmQgZmFydGhl ciBhc2lkZSBhbmQgZXZlbiB0aGUgc3BlZWNoIGJ5IHRoZSBEYWxhaSBMYW1hIHNlZW1lZCB0 byBiZSBhIG1lcmUgYWZ0ZXJ0aG91Z2h0LiAgVGhlIHJlYWwgd29yayBvZiB0aGUgUGFybGlh bWVudCB3YXMgZG9uZSBieSB0aG9zZSB3aG9tIGhhZCBvbmx5IGJlZW4gc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8g YmUgc3BlY3RhdG9ycyBhbmQgYnkgdGhlIHRpbWUgdGhlIHdlZWsgd2FzIG92ZXIsIHRoZSBz by1jYWxsZWQgY3JpdGljYWwgaXNzdWVzLCBvZiB3aGljaCBzbyBtdWNoIGhhZCBiZWVuIG1h ZGUgaW4gdGhlIHByZS1QYXJsaWFtZW50IGxpdGVyYXR1cmUsIGRpZCBub3Qgc2VlbSBzbyBj cml0aWNhbCBhZnRlciBhbGwuICBUaGVyZSB3YXMsIGluIGZhY3QsIGEgc25lYWtpbmcgaG9w ZSBieSBtYW55IHRoYXQgUm9iZXJ0IE11bGxlciBhbmQgR2VyYWxkIEJhcm5leSB3b3VsZCBi ZSBjb25zaWduZWQgdG8gdGhlIHNhbWUgcGFkZGVkIGNlbGwsIHN1Y2ggbGl0dGxlIHZhbHVl IHdhcyBwbGFjZWQgdXBvbiB0aGVpciB3b3Jkcy4NClRodXMgaW4gdGhlIGVuZCB0aGVyZSB3 ZXJlIHR3byBXb3JsZCBQYXJsaWFtZW50cyBvZiBSZWxpZ2lvbiB0YWtpbmcgcGxhY2UgaW4g dGhlIHNhbWUgcGxhY2UgYXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGltZS4gIE9uZSwgYSBnYXRoZXJpbmcgb2Yg ZGlmZmVyZW50IHBlb3BsZSBmcm9tIGFsbCBvdmVyIHRoZSB3b3JsZCB3aG8gbGVmdCBmZWVs aW5nIHRoYXQgc29tZXRoaW5nIGdyZWF0LCBhbGJlaXQgbGFyZ2VseSB1bmRlZmluYWJsZSwg aGFkIG9jY3VycmVkLiAgVGhlIG90aGVyIHRoZSBvZmZpY2lhbCBQYXJsaWFtZW50IG9mIHRo ZSBvcmdhbml6ZXJzLCBhIGdhdGhlcmluZyB0aGF0IGVuZGVkIHJhdGhlciBsaWtlIFNoYWtl c3BlYXJlJ3MgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiBsaWZlLCAiQSB0YWxlIHRvbGQgYnkgYW4gaWRpb3Qs IGZ1bGwgb2Ygc291bmQgYW5kIGZ1cnksIHNpZ25pZnlpbmcgbm90aGluZy4iDQoTUEFHRRQz FQ0KDQoNCg0KDHYBiAEAfQGAApBwCA0KQ2hhcmxlcyBXLiBDb3NpbWFubw0KDQpJdCBjb3Vs ZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gYSBuaWdodG1hcmUuDQpJdCBjZXJ0YWlubHkgYmVnYW6AAQAA9gkAAAYK AACXEwAAmBMAAJwTAACdEwAAnhMAAJ8TAAClEwAApxMAALQTAAD79/v1APUA9QD77QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAIAAAAAFAAAAAAAAAQAAgACAAcC AAQAAAAYBwAABAAAABgAC4ABAACyAQAAtgEAAMsBAADNAQAA7gEAAA0EAAD1BAAAFgUAAIYG AAAPBwAACgkAAL4KAAD2CwAAlg0AANoOAADXEQAAlxMAAKETAACjEwAApRMAAKcTAAD6+vry 8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLq4tzX1+IAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAABfMAAcAh8AAFAgAABwAABcAh4AEU4AEW8AAAAAcA AAnAIeABFOABFvAAAAAHAAAAAAAAABTgARbwAAAABQAAAAAAAAAFAQAVDQAQAAD///////// //////8AHgD/////////////////DgAARgAAABQAAAAAAAkEFwD/////////////////BwAA AAAAAAAOAPMAAAD1AP8A/wD/AP8A/wD/AP8AAAAAAP8AAN4AAAAAJxIAABAApxMAAAAAAACP BQAAxgwAACcSAAAIAv//AAABAPsBAAL//wAAAgBEAQgC//8AAAMAAAAAAAAADAAAABIAAACA AQAAtBMAAAoAgAEAAKcTAAALACgAEhYAVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuAAkWAlN5bWJvbAAIJgBB cmlhbAAAAAAABQAAAAcAAAASAAAAEyEU/xUAAAADgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAJAACAAIAAAAAAAAAA ALYHAAAiAAIAAwOLAAAA0AIAAGgBAAAAANea2QV7u9tFdrvbRQcAZgAAACcDAAAGEgAAAwAA AAAAGQAAAAAAAAADIkMiAyJDIgAAAAAAAAAAAA== --PART.BOUNDARY.0.19680.emout09.mail.aol.com.840151126-- From eldon@theosophy.com Fri Aug 16 07:27:28 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 00:27:28 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960816072728.00683b34@imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: No rules Chuck: >Rules=Bad >No Rules=Good > >Sign in Dr. Psionic's consulting room and monster making facility: > >"Learn the Rules >Break the Rules" Rule: in America, drive the car on the right-hand side of the road, stop for red lights, use only one traffic lane at a time. Break the rule: no one to stop you, but you may die, and take others with you. Moral: Some rules allow us to coexist without killing each other, with minimal loss of personal rights. Of course, every situation is different, with regard to rules. Sometimes they make sense. Other times, they're a waste of time. -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 16 00:33:39 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 01:33:39 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Consciousness In-Reply-To: <199608151801.OAA28986@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608151801.OAA28986@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes (to Patrick) >You say that life manifesting through matter produces consciousness. That's >not quite the way I see it. I believe that consciousness manifests in >matter, because it needs a form to manifest in or through. My view as well. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 16 01:21:06 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:21:06 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <$Rt7wLAC08EyEwXo@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Missing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Apology: The mailing list for TI members TI-L has gone down temporarily, but it is hoped that it will be up again by Friday. Alan :-( --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From poulsen@dk-online.dk Fri Aug 16 13:16:04 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:16:04 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB8B64.8680D080@ppp199.dk-online.dk> Subject: RE: Authorial reluctance Encoding: 22 TEXT, 45 UUENCODE Dear Martin, could you specify what this authorial reluctance might be (you could be talking of anyone). I am myself working on a large body of material, which I normally will not tire the readers here with. (I intended to write a little last week on the VOS thread, but my computer broke down and delayed me.) I am just now working on something which to me is exciting enough to raise the little hairs on the back of my neck, but which never arouses much comment when I mentions it. I have made the observation that certain ancient texts are full of terms we connect with theosophical doctrines and that these terms disappear completely in translations. An example - in the Mandukya karika 4.92 Gaudapada mentions Adibuddha and the realition of "it" to the seventh principle, Shankara adds that this seventh principle is svabhavat. In short, someone aught to translate such material from a theosophical angle. To me it seems the best chance to lay our hands on some high quality eso teric material - and this is my angle described unreluctantly! In friendship, Kim Attachment Converted: "C:\TEMP\WINMAIL3.DAT" From saf@angel.elektra.ru Fri Aug 16 07:20:13 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:08:56 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608161110.AA01233@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Paracelsus Hi Does anybody know are there Paracelsus's treatises in internet? (or over materials about Paracelsus) Uri From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 16 09:09:49 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:06:49 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <18ABA82E0D@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Jerry wrote >As I understand it, your argument is this: You say that Luke was >a disciple of Paul, who was orthodox, therefore Luke had "good >relations with orthodoxy"; that Luke "wrote the Gospel" [of >Luke]; Luke talks about Pilate; therefore Jesus lived under >Pilate. Your logic would be solid if Paul had written the >Epistles and Luke the Gospel of Luke, or at least that the >Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke represent the ideas of >their respective name sakes. But here lies the great flaw: No. I think that Luke composed the gospel collecting some pieces of information found in the oral and written tradition. I include Luke as orthodox because he is cited by others orthodox such as Iraenaus and Eusebius. They would never cited a person that had relations with heretics (groups that did not follow the ortodoxy, the vitorious sect of christians at century IV). >Early in this discussion, I mentioned that only two of the >fourteen epistles of Paul are generally accepted to be genuine. You cited before that Paul had written four epistles. At that time I mention two references about Elaine Pagels ("Adam,Eve and the serpent",1988 I,52)and Daniel Rops (LEglise des apostres et des Martyrs,Paris,1948 II,68) states that scholars recognice that Paul wrote seven epistles: Romans,I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Filipenses, I Tessalonics and Filemon. You (without mention any reference) agreed that at least four are genuine and wrote: Your earlier posting was: >Of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul, only the letter to the >Romans, the two to the Corinthians and the one to the Galatians >are universally accepted as genuine by modern Biblical scholars. Now you reduces the number to two. I will repeat the question is not the authenticity, to our discussion (that Jesus did not live one century before as stated in Toldoth). These epistles reflects the doctrines of Paul, as the early church, and were considered so by many others such as Marcion, paulicians and cathars that accepted pauline epistles and an adultered version fo gospel of Luke. Luke refers to Jesus living under Pilate, and never one century before as stated in Toldoth. Jerry wrote that 1Tm was written most probably in the second century, too late to be contemporary with the accepted dates of the Biblical Jesus. Jerry recognices that the epistle is not a forgery, but wrote by someone "under inspiration gained from knowing Paul". But I disagree with you, that 1Tm6:18 have no historical significance. Your mention of Pilate and Baptism, don't modify this historical value. If Jesus had lived one century before, this passage referrring to a baptism at this date, would use the name of another person than Pilate. Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 16 09:10:51 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:07:51 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <18AFE07708@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Commenting the testimony of Tacitus Jerry wrote: >There is no question that by 110 A.D., when the above was >written, the story of a Jesus crucified under Pilate was well >established in the Christian community. Therefore Tacitus' >explanation is not historical evidence of the event, but merely a >repetition of Christian belief, which Tacitus would have no >reason to question. It is interesting to conclude that the history about Jesus was probably before 110 AD, and as you agree, reflects a christian belief that is present in gospel today. Why Tatian and Suetonius never mentions the history about Jesus living one century before? Probably this question only arises several centuries later, and was never mentioned at early times. In http://marie.az.com/~mrosen/ Hayyim ben Yehoshua writes: >It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ >or Christus (=Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate >during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by >the Christians themselves and appearing in the gospels of _Mark_, >_Matthew _and _Luke_ which had already been widely circulated >when the _Annals_ were being written. (The _Annals_ were published after >115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv). Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Fri Aug 16 09:14:32 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:11:32 -0300 From: Subject: Unveiled Isis (gnosis) Priority: normal Message-Id: <18C00F4404@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Unveiled Isis (gnosis) BOOK III, chapter V (191,217) page 210 HPB states that Paul was the only apostle to receive gnosis from Jesus. But at chapter III (116,145) page 134 she says that Jesus taught magi to John, and at chapter IV (153,185) page 167 she says that Jesus teach his gnosis to SOME disciples (more than one disciple). So, what did HPB want to say? How many disciples receive Jesus gnosis from Jesus himself? Abrantes From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 16 17:31:29 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 96 13:31:29 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608161731.NAA06565@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Martin's question Dear Martin, You asked about my approach in the Cayce book. I thought I had already stated it. The title is Edgar Cayce in Context, and the subtitle keeps changing but for now is Historical Perspectives on the Readings. What the book tries to do is to place Cayce's teachings in context of their antecedents, as well as his contemporaries who taught similar doctrines. After a historical introduction, there are four long chapters: Christian Theosopher, which examines the universalistic neo-Gnostic interpretation of Christianity in the readings. Esoteric Psychologist, which investigates Cayce's model of the human constitution, his meditation guidelines, astrological system, interpretation of attitudes and emotions, pattern of group work, and explanation of psychic phenomena. Holistic Health Advisor, which explores Cayce's record as a psychic diagnostician, the general dietary and health guidelines in the readings, and the specific treatments for various illnesses. Clairvoyant Time Traveler, which examines Cayce's portrayal of the past and future, with emphasis on Atlantis, ancient Egypt, the time of Christ, and the near future. Underlying all this are two questions: where in previous literature are the teachings of the Cayce readings found? and how did these get into the readings? The first question is easy enough: Blavatsky, Steiner, Gurdjieff, Radhasoami, New Thought, liberal Protestantism, Freud, Jung, osteopathy, the Hay diet, Donnelly, and some others. The second is much harder to answer, and I'm still working on it. But the testimony of people who knew him is unanimous to the effect that he was not a heavy reader of such material, and in a waking state of consciousness appeared quite unfamiliar with it. Unless this is a carefully orchestrated coverup (and I'll be going to Hopkinsville to do some research on possible conflicting reports) he somehow absorbed all this material another way than reading. Since there are plenty of errors, we can rule out direct access to some absolute storehouse of truth, which Cayce himself never claimed. He said that his subconscious mind could link itself to any or all other subconscious minds, and find the answer to any question that way. Something like this does indeed seem to be the modus operandi. The problem is, all mistaken notions ever thought by anyone are out there to be tapped into as easily as all truths ever known-- and an entranced person cannot distinguish among them very well. Hope that helps. From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 16 18:49:44 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:49:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Beatles & Rules In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Until we can *see,* all kinds of music are for us in the 'gray area,' all are 'equal,' none is 'better' that others, and we may feel we need to practice 'tolerance,' tolerance here in fact being based on illusory perception. Adepts can see so they look at it differently (see e.g. HPB's "From the Caves and Jungles..."). From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 16 19:33:25 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:33:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: On the nature of space In-Reply-To: <960815184716_457487053@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > Of the "six Orthodox Schools" in Hindu philosophy (the three most important > are Vedanta, Yoga, and Sankhya--I can't remember the other three), I have > more or less concluded that THE SECRET DOCTRINE is probably most compatible > with the "dualistic" Sankhya. The general idea with this is that existing > UNCREATED from all eternity is the "material" ~Prakriti~ (Substance) on one > "side" and the "immaterial" Purusa (Undifferentiated Consciousness, "Self," > "Soul,") on the other. (Actually, I'm cheating a little by presenting it > this way, since I think the prevailing point of view is that there are plural > ~Souls~.) It is not necessary to think in terms of compatibility. The real issue is what the reality is like. If discursive thinking could embrace it, than your concern would be legitimate--but it looks like it's a street wisdom these days that the reality escapes our attempts to conveniently define it in consistent and mutually compatible rational terms. Let's take an example from the history of physics. After the electron has been discovered, many people firmly believed it's a particle. Then quantum physics jumped on the arena, and it turned out that it may behave as a wave. For quite a while there was a fierce struggle of two corresponding schools of thoughts. This issue has been finally settled up when the general consensus emerged that quantum objects may behave themselves in both ways, so complementarity of contradictions rather than compatibility is an underlying law of nature. (This law is hidden so deep we cannot feel its action on the ordinary level.) > The interesting thing which contrasts somewhat with your above remarks is > that in Sankya, ~Spirit~ is already a component of Substance--i.e., already > included within the Prakriti side of things. Indeed, it is often said that > it is the very fact of Spirit's ~material~ nature being so ultra-rarefied > that it is indistinguishable from Self (Undifferentiated Consciousness) that > we have the necessary "point of contamination" for all the forms of > Self-delusion etc. It's OK with me, too. I see it as another, complementary perspective on the reality. Pure, spiritless substance does not exist; it's informed by the Third Logos (the Holy Spirit), or in other words is contaminated (or impregnated) by Spirit. When people talk about the spirit-matter contact I believe they mean marriage of the 1st Logos (Father) and the 3rd Logos (Mother) 'producing' (manifesting) the 2nd Logos (the Son, the Christ principle, or Consciousness). Also, Agni Yoga emphasizes that spirit and matter are so indivisible that it's better to use the term 'spirit-matter.' I believe HPB said something like this: spirit is matter in its state of utter rarefication while matter is spirit in its state of utter densification. From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 16 20:33:36 1996 Date: 16 Aug 96 16:33:36 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: To Cos:Beatles and Rules Message-Id: <960816203335_72723.2375_FHP50-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >Their prejudices probably go back to the >lunatic ravings of Cyril Scott, a man of no talent himself and his very >peculiar ideas (he wrote that Jazz was "Black Magic" which makes me wonder if >Verdi is Italian Magick), . . . Who was Scott and what time period did he live in? Was he connected to TS? >So, for the benefit of those who were so benighted as to have missed it, I am >attaching a short little thing I wrote (it isn't very good, that's why I >never expanded it for publication) about the Parliament. >Have fun. What I received looked like a bowl of alphabet soup. Maybe you want to try sending it again. - Ann E. Bermingham From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 16 21:40:21 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 17:40:21 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608162247.SAA20064@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: nature of space Dear Patrick, Well, I took out Harry's book "Inner Peace through the Process of Knowing". I don't see that it helps define dimensions any more understandanbly, at least not to me, but here is some of what he says: "We begin with the concept of consciousness as an infinite, conditionless, universal field functioning in 3 cognitive and noumenal fields and in the phenomenal universe as the electrosomatic and electro-psychic fields. Each of these fields is considered to be an aspect of a higher dimensional field. Thus, the 3 dimensional electro-somatic field is an aspect of the 4-dimensional electro-psychic field; the electro-psychic is an aspect of the 5-dimensional cognitive field, and so on. (from the page before)"The human being is a conscious entity functioning in the different fields (subjective and objective) of nature, originating on the Field of Consciousness. The third dimensional field is the densest, that is, the electrical vibrations are relatively slower." There is a chart Field Dimension Function subjective 7th, be-ness Consciousness: the field of all encompassing unity; indefinable. subjective 6th, being Synthesis (Nous) The Unity of Cognition and knowledge. Awareness of man and universe as unity. subjective 5th, the purpose of Cognition (Eidos) the field wherein life is Knowing, which all archetypes and all potentials of comes only through function exist. phenomenal experience objective 4th communication cen- Psyche: Development of personality ters to the subjective field of the emotions and thought fields. Each emotion has process; the electro-psychic field a corresponding area in the body. objective 3rd Physical Body: the elctro- somatic field From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 16 21:40:11 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 17:40:11 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608162247.SAA20057@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: beatles & rules Dear Ann, I don't think anyone has the right to tell another person what music they should listen to, not unless they're conducting a music course on , say baroque music. I think it depends entirely on what turns you on, and I don't think anyone else has a right to intrude on that. Now I, for one am mostly a classical music enthusiast. But that includes some modern classicists, like Aron Copland. I thought I really disliked rock 'n roll. It's too loud and the beat is too pronounced & steady. But a few weeks ago I asked one of our summer college kids to lend me some of her rock disks, to copy for Konstantin, and the stuff she gave me was gentle & melodious, and I thought, quite nice. Some of the sounds the instruments produced were far out, but not jarring, so I thought they were innovative & interesting. On the other had, last year my cusin invited me to her daughter's wedding. It was quite a gala affair, & it cost me several $100 to get there, stay there & give a wedding present. The dancing was done to very loud rock. I couldn't take it. I walked out, & my cusin didn't forgive me until very recently. So That's one person's musical odyssey. If anyone wants to tell me I'm wrong .... how's that possible? they're not me! Liesel From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Fri Aug 16 23:23:35 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:23:35 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608162323.AA02105@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Historic Jesus Hi Abrantes, As I understand it, HPB, GRS Mead, Hayyim ben Yehoshua, and other 19th and 20th century writers on Biblical criticism all agree that the story of a Jesus born of a virgin and executed under Pilate evolved late in the first century when the Christians began to organize themselves as a separate tradition. As I read them, HPB, Mead and Yehoshua are all saying that the Jewish tradition shows a Jesus of 100 years earlier. The above writers are offering arguments that the Biblical Jesus is partially based upon this person. By the very nature of their argument, I don't see how it can be disproved by citing statements of commentators who had written after the Jesus/Pilate tradition had been established. If you are interested in exploring this argument, we will have to look at Jewish tradition and historical documents and commentaries written BEFORE the gospels. ---------------------------------------------------------- To respond to you last three postings: JHE >>There is no question that by 110 A.D., when the above was >>written, the story of a Jesus crucified under Pilate was well >>established in the Christian community. Therefore Tacitus' >>explanation is not historical evidence of the event, but merely >>a repetition of Christian belief, which Tacitus would have no >>reason to question. Abrantes >It is interesting to conclude that the history about Jesus was >probably before 110 AD, and as you agree, reflects a christian >belief that is present in gospel today. Why Tatian and Suetonius >never mentions the history about Jesus living one century >before? Probably this question only arises several centuries >later, and was never mentioned at early times. In >http://marie.az.com/~mrosen/ Hayyim ben Yehoshua writes: >>It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from >>Christ or Christus (=Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was >>executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely >>on the claims being made by the Christians themselves and >>appearing in the gospels of _Mark_, _Matthew _and _Luke_ which >>had already been widely circulated when the _Annals_ were being >>written. (The _Annals_ were published after 115 C.E. and were >>certainly not written before 110 C.E.) >Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to >which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman >writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them >as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated >the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred >from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and >calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, >iv). JHE Yes, Yehoshua's comment here is pretty standard. Christian evangelists often cite Tacitus' mention of a Jesus Crucified under Pilate as historical proof of the event. After all, Tacitus was a historian. The argument Yehoshua is alluding to here is that Tacitus has no reason to doubt this story, because from a Roman point of view, it puts Christianity in a bad light. At the time, the Romans had a law against the practice of new religions in Rome. Only ancient religions were legal. Though the Romans knew nothing of Jesus, they knew about Pilate. Since Pilate lived only a century earlier, the information would make Christianity a new religion. Therefore, Tacitus would have no reason to question information furnished by a Christian that incriminates the religion under Roman law. I suppose that one could argue that since only ancient religions were legal in Rome, the Christians would want to represent their religion to be as old as possible. But obviously, for whatever reasons--they didn't. However, it would not have mattered whether the Christians living in Tacitus' time believed in a Jesus that lived one or two hundred years earlier: Christianity would have still been classified as a "new religion." ---------------------------------------------------------- Abrantes: >BOOK III, chapter V (191,217) page 210 HPB states that Paul was >the only apostle to receive gnosis from Jesus. But at chapter >III (116,145) page 134 she says that Jesus taught magi to John, >and at chapter IV (153,185) page 167 she says that Jesus teach >his gnosis to SOME disciples (more than one disciple). > >So, what did HPB want to say? How many disciples receive Jesus >gnosis from Jesus himself? JHE I have already mentioned several times that HPB speaks of three Jesus: an historical, a Biblical and a theological. Unless those distinctions are made, HPB will appear to contradict herself in every chapter. In chapter V, HPB is writing here of the historical Paul who received gnosis from the Christ through visions. The other references you mention concern the Biblical Jesus. ------------------------------------------------------------ JHE >>As I understand it, your argument is this: You say that Luke >>was a disciple of Paul, who was orthodox, therefore Luke had >>"good relations with orthodoxy"; that Luke "wrote the Gospel" >>[of Luke]; Luke talks about Pilate; therefore Jesus lived under >>Pilate. Your logic would be solid if Paul had written the >>Epistles and Luke the Gospel of Luke, or at least that the >>Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke represent the ideas of >>their respective name sakes. But here lies the great flaw: Abrantes: >No. I think that Luke composed the gospel collecting some pieces >of information found in the oral and written tradition. I >include Luke as orthodox because he is cited by others orthodox >such as Iraenaus and Eusebius. They would never cited a person >that had relations with heretics (groups that did not follow the >ortodoxy, the vitorious sect of christians at century IV). JHE Your opinion that Luke compiled the Gospel of Luke is a minority one, not supportable by evidence presently known. The thinking of Biblical scholars, (even most who are in the church) is that the Gospels (whether written or compiled) are anonymous. We know that the attributing authors to the gospels was begun in the second century and the present attributions were canonized by Iraenaus. As I explained in the last post, the phrase "according to xxxx" was not a part of the original gospels--the authorship of the Gospels is unknown. I think that even in the material you posted regarding Marcion, it was clear to me that Tertullian's idea of Luke was very different from Marcion's. Therefore, I see no reason why Marcion would not embrace his Gnostic conceptions of Luke and Tertullian embrace his orthodox conceptions of Luke. It is a matter of one's point of view. It is clear that Marcion had his own ideas regarding what is authentic and what are interpolations concerning the Gospel of Luke. My impression is that Marcion's vision of Jesus is much like that found in the most authentic epistles of Paul i.e. a non historical Jesus. If Luke is a disciple of Paul, then it would follow that Marcion would expect Luke to also write about a non historical Jesus. This also appears to be the reason behind Marcion's rejection of portions of Tertullian's Gospel of Luke as being interpolations. JHE >Early in this discussion, I mentioned that only two of the >fourteen epistles of Paul are generally accepted to be genuine. Abrantes >You cited before that Paul had written four epistles. At that >time I mention two references about Elaine Pagels ("Adam,Eve and >the serpent",1988 I,52)and Daniel Rops (LEglise des apostres et >des Martyrs,Paris,1948 II,68) states that scholars recognice >that Paul wrote seven epistles: Romans,I and II Corinthians, >Galatians, Filipenses, I Tessalonics and Filemon. You (without >mention any reference) agreed that at least four are genuine and >wrote: >Your earlier posting was: >>Of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul, only the letter to >>the Romans, the two to the Corinthians and the one to the >>Galatians are universally accepted as genuine by modern >>Biblical scholars. >Now you reduces the number to two. I will repeat the question is >not the authenticity, to our discussion (that Jesus did not live >one century before as stated in Toldoth). These epistles >reflects the doctrines of Paul, as the early church, and were >considered so by many others such as Marcion, paulicians and >cathars that accepted pauline epistles and an adultered >version fo gospel of Luke. Luke refers to Jesus living under >Pilate, and never one century before as stated in Toldoth. JHE There are a lot of grey areas concerning the authenticity of the Epistles. Some are accepted by some scholars and rejected by others. Some of them are believed to be from Paul's writings with interpolations added later. Therefore, some authorities will call these "authentic" because the interpolations are minor, where others will reject them. But even those Epistles that are considered the most authentic are not Paul's letters as he had written them, but compilations from many of his letters. However, my original point concerning Paul's letters, is that 1Tim. is not considered to be authentic. Even if we agree to accept Elaine Pagel's list of seven authentic epistles, 1Tim is still not one of them. Therefore it doesn't matter whether I allude to one scholar who accepts four Epistles or another who accepts only two. The point is that 1Tim. does not appear on anyone's list. Abrantes: >Jerry wrote that 1Tm was written most probably in the second >century, too late to be contemporary with the accepted dates of >the Biblical Jesus. Jerry recognices that the epistle is not a >forgery, but wrote by someone "under inspiration gained from >knowing Paul". JHE I suggested that 1Tim *could* have been written by someone who knew Paul. I also suggested that it *could* have been written by someone who communicated with the deceased Paul through visions. These are only conjectures based upon how things were done in those days. Either way, the Epistle would not be a forgery, nor would it have been written by Paul. Keep in mind that writing under the inspiration of Paul's memory, either through inspiration or visions, and attributing that writing to Paul would not have been considered a forgery in those days. Abrantes: >But I disagree with you, that 1Tm6:18 have no historical >significance. Your mention of Pilate and Baptism, don't modify >this historical value. If Jesus had lived one century before, >this passage referrring to a baptism at this date, would use the >name of another person than Pilate. JHE You mean 1Tim 6:13. I think you have mis-understood what I said about 1Tm6:13. I said that this is not an historical passage concerning Jesus and Pilate at all. Therefore, it has no historical value concerning the dating of Jesus. I already mentioned that 1Tim is a late first/early second century pastoral document, written after the Jesus/Pilate story was already adopted. Therefore it is expected that the anonymous author of 1Tim. would have reference to it. As to my reference to an earlier tradition of baptism, keep in mind that the rite of baptism long predates Christianity and was part of the Nazar tradition--therefore it does not have to concern Jesus or Pilate at all. Looking at your above argument, It appears that another one seems to be implied: that the writers of the Gospels somehow were compelled to choose between a Toldoth Jesus or a Pilate Jesus. Why would this be so? Even in the writings of the early church fathers, there is evidence of lots of ideas concerning Jesus-- some orthodox--some not. I believe that one of your earliest posts discussed one of these concerning the length of time Jesus taught. The further back we go, the more unsettled all of these conflicting ideas seem to be. So it is not so simple as a choice of one scenerio over the other. There were many ideas floating around and none were necessarily accepted or rejected until canonized. Rather, the evidence presented in Paul's authentic epistles is that Jesus' historicity was not an issue at all, and the historical data was chosen (or devised) at a later time in order to fit prophecy and the political needs of the Church. I suggest that we abandon this well worn road of attempting to prove the existence of Jesus from evidence in the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. All of the evidence you have so far raised have been raised for over 100 years and successfully argued to not establish the existence of a historical Jesus under Pilate. Rather then re-arguing these old arguments, why don't you just pick up a current text on Biblical criticism that reviews all of the arguments. I would make a recommendation, but everything I have here is out of print. Pagels touches on some of the arguments, but here books are not really focused in that area. For our discussion, I think it would be more productive to explore the Hebrew, Gnostic and pre-Christian traditions in light of Christianity. I have no doubt that the Jesus of the Toldoth, though historical, cannot be proven to be the bases of the Biblical Jesus either. But my interest is in the exploration of the material--not to prove or disprove anything. Jerry From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 16 23:33:10 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:33:10 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960816193309_387021961@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: No rules Eldon Any rule that does not have a DIRECT result that I or someone I like may be killed is fair game. Chuck From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 16 23:40:14 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:40:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960816194014_387026817@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Beatles & Rules Max, It is very hard to practice tolerance when one is getting violently ill, but the concept is not without merit. On the other hand, when one has the opportunity to annoy people, one should do so. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 16 23:43:56 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 19:43:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960816194355_387029184@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cos:Beatles and Rules Ann, Cyril Scott was a third-rate composer who lived in the early part of this century and is best known for his "Initiate" in various cycles trilogy. He wrote a number of absolutely looney articles on music for the Adyar Theosophist. I never got to send gobbledygook before. It's an interesting experience. Usually I don't need the help of the software to make a fool of myself, I can do that well enough on my own. Chuck the Heretic From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 01:28:33 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 02:28:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Chuck au lait In-Reply-To: <960816194355_387029184@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960816194355_387029184@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >I never got to send gobbledygook before. It's an interesting experience. > Usually I don't need the help of the software to make a fool of myself, I >can do that well enough on my own. Boasting again, huh? St. Alan of Seroxat --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From pmmkien@main.com Sat Aug 17 02:44:48 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:44:48 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608170233.VAA13244@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Nature of Space etc... Richard Ihle writes, and others echo a similar view that, >And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated >Consciousness comes FIRST. Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical articles again and again. But what does it really mean? The idea that some "conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? How does it do this? How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity? Through Psychokinesis? Does this happen on a microscopic level, like the mind controling atoms, and if so - why is this process so difficult to duplicate in the laboratory. Has anyone thought much about this? Paul K. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 00:07:02 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 01:07:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Sankhya In-Reply-To: <960815184716_457487053@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960815184716_457487053@emout16.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >I have >more or less concluded that THE SECRET DOCTRINE is probably most compatible >with the "dualistic" Sankhya. I came across some Sankhya teaching many years ago (1960s) and found it to be compatible with my perception of Kabala (my main discipline). It would be interesting to be pointed towards some Sankhya material (with glossary!) if such a thing be possible. Could try Alta Vista of course ... :-) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 00:16:34 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 01:16:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Authorial reluctance (to Paul) In-Reply-To: <960815193558_76400.1474_HHL45-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960815193558_76400.1474_HHL45-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >I have lots of folks write and ask me to explain Enochian >Magic to them. Now, I have just published my 7th book on the >subject, and they want to explain it all in one personal letter. How about, "Dear ..., Go buy my book on Enochian Magic, and all will be revealed (please send postage)." Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 00:01:28 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 01:01:28 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Unveiled Isis (gnosis) In-Reply-To: <18C00F4404@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <18C00F4404@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >Unveiled Isis (gnosis) > >BOOK III, chapter V (191,217) page 210 HPB states that Paul was the only apostle >to >receive gnosis from Jesus. But at chapter III (116,145) page 134 she says that >Jesus >taught magi to John, and at chapter IV (153,185) page 167 she says that Jesus >teach his gnosis >to SOME disciples (more than one disciple). > >So, what did HPB want to say? How many disciples receive Jesus gnosis from Jesus >himself? > >Abrantes There is a distinction, which HPB may have known, between "disciples" and "apostles." Disciples are those who follow the teacher. Apostles are those who represent the teacher to others ("Shaliach" in Hebrew, or plenipotentiary in English). In any event, if we are to take Paul's account, he got his gnosis from Gamaliel ... Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 00:14:25 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 01:14:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Historic Jesus In-Reply-To: <18AFE07708@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <18AFE07708@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero >subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the >Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish >sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish >records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the >absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people >(Hist., V, iii, iv). Tacitus may have made this assumption, and it might well have been a common perception in his time. Certainly Nero seems to have seen the Xtians as a sort of Jews. This kind of testimony supports my notion that Christianity as an *entirely separate* religion from Judaism did not emerge until around the time of the earliest received and surviving texts (ie, the actual documents, not the stories they contain). Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 00:28:34 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 01:28:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Christian tradition In-Reply-To: <9608162323.AA02105@toto.csustan.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <9608162323.AA02105@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >For our discussion, I think it would be more productive to >explore the Hebrew, Gnostic and pre-Christian traditions in light >of Christianity. I have no doubt that the Jesus of the Toldoth, >though historical, cannot be proven to be the bases of the >Biblical Jesus either. But my interest is in the exploration of >the material--not to prove or disprove anything. > I'd like to see this the ther way around - explore the Christian traditions in the light of the Hebrew, Gnostic and pre-Christian traditions from which we might suspect they developed. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 15 23:43:08 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 00:43:08 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Articles Mime-Version: 1.0 To TI members and others: I am putting some articles from various sources into a directory on my homepage. TI members or anyone else with possibly useful material to make available are invited to e-mail their contributions to me at write@nellie2.demon.co.uk Longer articles could be "zipped" and sent uuencoded, as I can decode binary files. Otherwise please send in plain vanilla ASCII. Obviously space is limited, and not everything I receive will necessarily find a place immediately, but I hope to "rotate" material from time to time as more data becomes available. Some material already available can be accessed (Netscape is best) using the URL http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/wisdom/ There will be sub-directories from there to other sources. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 15 23:34:44 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 00:34:44 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Doing it Mime-Version: 1.0 Foreword A slightly different version of the article which follows was originally submitted for publication in ~The Theosophical Journal~ in England but was not used, although the endnote to it was, and is on my homepage as "OKJILL" It has been adapted and reissued with a view to helping forward the work of Theosophical and any similar groups. THEOSOPHICAL STUDY "The Theosophical Society was founded to let it be known that such a thing as Theosophy exists." - H.P. Blavatsky in ~The Key to Theosophy.~ Although it is high time that the language used should be amended (alternative suggestions in square brackets) it is stated in every issue of the Theosophical Journal: THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY was formed in New York on 17th November 1875, and incorporated in Madras, India, on 3rd April 1905. Its three declared objects are: 1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. [. . . a nucleus of a universal human family . . .] 2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science. 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man. [. . . the abilities latent in human beings.] At first sight it seems that the first of these objects is more than a little ambitious, however expressed. On reflection, it is clear that we are not striving for some kind of total and all-embracing new world order without beginning where we all must - on our own doorsteps. If support for the first object is to mean anything, we must endeavour to practice what we preach - and of course, it is only by individual human beings living the life that is implicit in such a lofty purpose that we can have any hope of realising it. And so, in practice, we are looking, in the first instance, to form smaller groups attempting to live in harmony and co-operation with each other, groups which may one day learn to unite with others to form larger "families." It is very clear that the second and third objects are as necessary for the eventual achievement of the first as are the good intentions of those who subscribe to them. Comparative Religion This is the first of three subjects which we are committed to encourage - committed, not to take it or leave it, as it may or may not please us, for to take such a view would be to deny acceptance of the objects themselves. Why should the study of Comparative Religion be the first on the list? It is plain that the world has not been well served by religious institutions, by different religions in open competition or even war with each other, and by different sects within the same religion committing acts of violence upon those who are supposedly of their own persuasion. Yet religions survive, competing with each other for the minds and hearts of individuals. Behind this impulse must lie a need, otherwise no one would ever subscribe to any creed. That a need exists, and attempts made to meet it, is self-evident from the long history of religion. Religion may be as old as humanity itself, planted there, perhaps, by some divine or spiritual intelligence, an intelligence with the wisdom to know our needs before we are ourselves aware of them; planted, perhaps, by a divine wisdom - but "divine" and "wisdom" are the roots of the word Theosophy itself. May it not be that the theosophical founders, in their wisdom, realised that if we could not overcome the obstacles that religious institutions placed in the way of universal harmony, then that harmony could not even be begun to be achieved. And so, perhaps, they realised the need to make such a comparative study in order to discover the essence of wisdom underlying all true religion, for surely it is wisdom, not idealism, that may eventually enable us to fulfil our primary purpose? Philosophy "Philosophy" is a term that derives from two Greek words meaning, together, "Love of wisdom." Clearly this has also to be a part of our study, equally with Religion. Science Science is not so much a subject, but a method; a method which takes the practical approach, the investigative approach. It may appear to ask "Why?" but in reality all it ever asks - and certainly all it ever discovers - is "How." If our perception of the how of things is false, then we will place a false emphasis on everything else. The scientific method is essential for a true approach to universal harmony, otherwise we may run the risk - as some theosophists have done in the past - of accepting ideas and opinions as dogmas - sacred "truths" never to be questioned. To encourage study, therefore, requires that we ourselves engage in study, and to study is to ask questions and look for answers. Therefore we must not merely encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science, but we must undertake it ourselves, otherwise will not others look at us and say, "This is all very well, but why are you not doing yourself what you are asking me to do?" Will they not be justified in thinking of us as just the teeniest bit hypocritical? - at least as hypocritical they may already perceive "religionists" to be? The Third Object "Unexplained laws of nature." To even begin to investigate these a working knowledge of scientific subjects and disciplines must, surely, already have been achieved? In other words, only by pursuing the second object can we hope to begin to work on the third. The abilities latent in human beings have become the domain of psychologists and parapsychologists, separate scientific studies within the overall perception implicit in the second object. We need to pay attention to their discoveries. Both parts of the third object are, in a sense, addressing the same question - the unexplained and undiscovered - the "hidden" or "occult." This too requires study. It is not enough therefore simply to attend lectures, listen to speakers, engage in debates and theoretical discussions, thence to go home saying, "Well, fancy that!" or "My oh my, what a clever and learned person!" We are various sorts of members of a Theosophical Group, not the local debating club, or visitors to an entertainment centre. The three objects are real, vital objects, requiring real vital attention, devotion, and discipline. To achieve anything really worthwhile requires doing, not talking about doing. Alan Bain, Bristol, January 12, 1994. (Revised March 1996). --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sat Aug 17 03:58:05 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 20:58:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Nature of Space etc... In-Reply-To: <199608170233.VAA13244@main.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Paul M.M. Kieniewicz wrote: > Richard Ihle writes, and others echo a similar view that, > > >And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated > >Consciousness comes FIRST. > > Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical > articles again and again. But what does it really mean? The idea that some > "conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? > > How does it do this? > > How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity? Through > Psychokinesis? Does this happen on a microscopic level, like the mind > controling atoms, and if so - why is this process so difficult to duplicate > in the laboratory. Has anyone thought much about this? What you've asked about is an old and difficult problem called "mind-body problem." It has been advanced by Descartes who also offered the first solution to the problen by postulating that body and the mind interact via the pineal gland. In reality, of course, it was no real solution, and nobody else was able to come up with a good idea, so it has also became known as 'The Descartes split" between body and the mind. The most promising area of research in the field is an aprroach based on the theory of neural networks, i.e. multiply-connected neurons (real neurons or neural chips). It has been discovered that such networks can store huge amounts of information in the form of more or less stable patterns of excitation of the entire system. It was hypothesized that memories might be such excitations. Neural networks may be trained (unlike ordinary computers that are to be programmed) so that can use their skills to solve problems. This is the first serious attempt to explain out the mind-body problem in the spirit of reductionism. According to the reductionist philosophy, the laws of a higher level may be reduced to--or explained on the basis of--the laws of the lower level right beneath. The most basic theory at this time is the Standard Model; it is able to more or less satisfactorily explain ALL known phenomena on the next level up, that of subnuclear particles, so here the reduction is complete success. (However, it leaves out gravitation...) Starting from subnuclear particles, it's possible to explain nuclei, next atoms, next simple molecules, and some aspects of behavior of macromolecules, so that it reduces the entire chemistry and some biochemistry to the lower level. (However, there is a serious and annoying gap: there is no satisfactory explanation yet of how, as complexity grows, quantum uncertainty yields to classical certainty and predicrability.) The next level--that of solids, fluids, and plasmas--can also be explained rather well based on atomic and molecular laws (although there is another serious gaps: there is no satisfactory explanation of how reversible laws governing microparticles transform into irreversible laws governing macroscopis bodies). From here, the structural evolution of matter branches in two directions: (1) toward celestial bodies and universe (astrophysics; macrocosm)--this is an area of active research now; and (2) living matter (biophysics, biology), and then human mind, society, etc.--this brings in a lot of new gaps and more questions than solutions. So as you can see, and as you probably know very well, science due to its persistence and using rigorous techniques of experimentation and reasoning was able to explain out a lot. Remarkable achievement. Of course the scientific worldview is incompatible with the theosophical one (natural processes are managed by an army of devas, credit for the human consciousness should go to Manasaputras,...) so it's no wonder that scientists completely ignore theosophy. Nevertheless it is felt that a real confirmation of theosophy (other than quoting Secret Doctrine to corroborate personal opinions) may come only through science when it extends its field of research to subtle energies. From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 17 02:50:04 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 22:50:04 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608170357.XAA03440@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: nature of space Dear paul, You pause some interesting questions. I hoep someone has th0ught enough about the matter to be able to engage in a dialogue with you Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 17 03:13:57 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 23:13:57 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608170421.AAA04437@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: nature of space >Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:44:48 -0500 > >Richard Ihle writes, and others echo a similar view that, > >>And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated >>Consciousness comes FIRST. > >Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical >articles again and again. But what does it really mean? The idea that some >"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? ..........................................................................> Liesel answers I wonder what "Undifferentiated is. Sounds like "Unmanifest." ............................................................................ >How does it do this? > >How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity? Through >Psychokinesis? Does this happen on a microscopic level, like the mind >controling atoms, and if so - why is this process so difficult to duplicate >in the laboratory. Has anyone thought much about this? > .............................................................................. It must somehow be able to incorporate itself into the corporeal entity. I hope Don DeGracia is lurking. he might have some answers for this. Liesel .............................................................................. >Paul K. > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 01:07:02 +0100 > From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sat Aug 17 10:37:38 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:37:38 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960818044954.1187ab54@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: The CAP (Cosmo/Anthro/Psychogenesis) Richard It's now rather a long time since you wrote your most interesting piece on this in reply to one of mine, which was in reply to one of yours ... etc. I would have replied much earlier but for the fact that I'm doing essentially one and a half jobs at the moment and "spare" time is something that will only appear in weekends - and only some of those - for a while. Anyway, to recap (yes, pun noticed) Richard Ihle> >>>The biggest stumbling block seems to be getting other people to regard >>>something they see, taste, touch, smell or hear as a temporary >>>ego-formation ("physical'--e.g., "I am my toothache"), or something they >>>want as another type of ego-formation ("desire-feeling"--e.g., "I am my >>>craving for pizza") .... . > Murray Stentiford> >>I dunno. It seems really obvious to me that consciousness is forever >>playing games of identifying itself with something or somestate, and then >>bouncing out and doing it again in another way. .... > Richard Ihle> >Thank you ~very~ much for sharing this, Murray. Actually, my original >intention for bringing these subjects up on theos-l was the hope that >"Psychogenesis" could come into being as some sort of "collaborative >product": that a consensual terminology would gradually emerge and that >the thus-far primitive understandings of the possible analogical >correspondences between it and Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis would be >improved and corrected by the many on this list who have far greater >scholarly mastership of the latter pair of components than I do. Yes, this has kind of woken in me a hope that we could see a collaborative process between those with that kind of scholarship on side and those with clear and active awareness (intuitive, clairvoyant, etc) on the other. If they're combined in the one person, so much the better. This is becoming an age of productive collaboration between those with different strengths and backgrounds (eg medical and engineering, in biomedical engineering), so it shouldn't be outside the human possibility zones of today. The challenge is great, and so are the potential rewards - and the risks of falling off the pathway of progress. It is so hard, of course. One of the risks is of becoming completely sunk in a morass of verbiage, as you said (quoted below), with everybody having their own interpretative shades on everything. A bit like theos-l, eh? And perhaps at this stage of history, each person has to tread for themselves. Nevertheless, I find the idea of a consensus, even if it is just that here is a great and rewarding field, compellingly attractive. >Unfortunately, Murray, the most down-to-earth component of the PTP always >seems to turn into the same kind of nightmare of uninviting verbiage as the >cosmos-building and translifetime components. This is especially >irritating since the insights Psychogenesis provides are so day-to-day >practical and useful. I think this sort of insight is of immense practical potential, too. Perhaps the approach should be multidisciplinary and include inputs from the best of the psychology of personal development, and of mythology. Plus plain (!) parenting. Imagine a team of 4 or 5 like this, with mutual respect and true openness to each others' value. >However, in my mind at least, HPB did not leave the Principal Theosophical >Philosophy (PTP) in the condition of being any kind of done-deal. I agree. >As Jerry Schueler often points out, even Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis >(HPB's most complete contributions) have room for expansion/modification; >however, Psychogenesis, which HPB begins to address when she slides into >talking about ~manas~, human principles, etc., she more or less clearly >invites us to further develop--"find the Psychological Key" etc. Even when she portrays a clear conceptual picture, I often have the feeling that the question "What does it actually MEAN?" is lying there, unseen most of the time. And even when we ask that, the reality of a new layer of insight always comes as a surprise, when it comes. A shift towards being more aware of the mytho-psychological dimensions and not just historical interpretation, could work wonders. >I believe that the PTP will not be complete until it is fully wearable as a >"CAP"--that is, includes Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis. Sounds very likely to me. I think most indigenous people's treasures of wisdom-myth are a connected network of these things, too. > To accomplish this, it would be nice if more people who actually know >something about the intricacies of the Rounds, Root Races, Sub-Races etc. >could rise above the limitation of ~Theosophy = HPB's Finished Bible~ and >help determine, by discussion and debate, the (if any) exact analogical >correspondences between these subjects and possible realities at the >psychological level. > Analogy is certainly one of the most potent tools we have, at this stage of activation of the human psyche. >Can Cosmogensis and Anthropogenesis themselves be thought of as "sacred >legend, narrative, myth and mystery"? Perhaps all or in part, yes; perhaps >all or in part, no. Yes, that's where my thinking is heading too; not entirely just sacred legend etc, but certainly with depths going a long way into those realms. >One thing I am sure of, however, is that when I began to (undoubtedly >influenced by Gurdjieff) make the "slight readjustment" which allowed me to >start regarding all my animating, physical, emotional, mental, and >spiritual experiences as possible "egos" ("semi-Selves," "psyches") coming >into and going out of existence (one at a time, please), ... Why??? :-) ... > and A became unbelievable analogical treasure-troves for the development >of a P for sure. The scope is enormous and without any need to feel the value of the literature is in any way belittled. In fact, on the contary. To cut short now, I liked your analysis of giving a 10-year-old "reasons", and would like to hear from other parents if they felt it was a good portrayal of what's going on. Early days, of course, and plenty of scope for detailed variation. Certainly, in my own development, it took a long time (and I'm talking more than a couple of decades) to identify fully with the idea of myself as engaged with the situational world - all those things like the need for a "good" job, and motivation to "do well". I even knew the reasons myself, as a young adult, but somehow wasn't fully connected and identified with them. Now they seem to sit fairly well into a network of understandings and energy flows that manage to combine the need for survival with the desire to be of service, in an embracing ethos of participation. Then, there's my shadow ... :-}> >All-in-all, Murray, for the moment it sort of looks like I may be slipping >back into my old dream--viz., that multiple contributors on theos-l might >be surprised one day to look up and see that somehow, in the midst of all >their discussions and arguments, the Principal Theosophical Philosophy has >become a perfectly reasonable-looking CAP. Needless to say, it was great >encouragement for me to learn that you have already been thinking and >working in this direction. Keep that dream alive, Richard - and flexible. It probably has a bit of a life of its own, like books that write themselves inside their authors. Thanks for your most stimulating thoughts. Murray Member TI and the TS in NZ From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 17 15:31:33 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:31:33 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960817113133_503515698@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Chuck au lait Alan, Fear not, it will a long time before I reach your record. :-) Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 17 15:32:24 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 11:32:24 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960817113224_503516127@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Authorial reluctance (to Paul) Alan, What's worse are the people who can't read a simple diagram and want it explained to them. Chuck the Heretic From RIhle@aol.com Sat Aug 17 17:20:17 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:20:17 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960817132017_261960592@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Nature of Space etc... Richard Ihle writes> >>And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated >>Consciousness comes FIRST. Paul K. writes> >Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical >articles again and again. But what does it really mean? The idea that some >"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? [snip] >How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity? Richard Ihle writes> Good questions, Paul. One little point: I believe that in Sankya it is generally held that ~Purusha~ (Self, Soul, Atman, Absolute, Undifferentiated Consciousness, Pure Consciousness) is simply a "witness"; it does not "control" bodies or anything else. The controlling "incorporeal mind" you referred to above, and which may or may not be the basis for the "mind-body problem," is probably closer to what HPB might designate as the "human soul," ~manas consciousness~ in one of its three principal conditions or "upadhis"--kama-manas, manas, Buddhi-manas. (An ~upadhi~ seems to be some sort of combination "concealing vehicle/limitation" for or superimposed on Purusha. Also, it is good to keep in mind that everything energy/physical, emotional, mental, and Spiritual is evolving of and within ~Prakriti~ (Substance); Purusha (Undifferentiated Consciousness) can be "contaminated" by means of its "verisimilitude" with Spirit, but other than that it remains on its own "side"--aloof and apart.) Now, however, if one associates the dimension of "mind" with manas, it must necessarily expand the definition of the latter beyond mere "mental activities" or "thinking." A "mind-thought package" would differ from a simple, "identity-neutral," automatic thought-event of the brain by virtue not only of the added potential to operate as a temporary "ego-formation" (deluded semi-Self) but also the potential for "control" of the "mind-thought-BODY package" as well. --Words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words. . . . If I correctly read between the lines of your comments, Paul, I detected a certain irritation with the way theosophical words often roll down the assembly line, resulting in a big end-product of uncertain meaning--or no meaning at all. If this is the case, I share your sentiment. Nevertheless, as I have suggested many times previously, I am convinced that all the grand theosophical systems--whether embodied in ancient religions or the cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE--were initially the analogical creations of advanced individuals who were experts in witnessing their own states of consciousness. Alas, perhaps we poor theosophists just get abstract philosophy and theology for our "mythology-mines"--and not nice stories like the Greeks and Romans etc. . . . Indeed, ~Undifferentiated Consciousness~ would be the most boring of subjects were it not for the fact that one can ~actually~ approach something like it (~Atma-Buddhi~manas?) in meditation. When all the other ~I am this-or-that's~ fall away and one yet remains "conscious-without-content," one becomes more interested--even perhaps beyond its psychogenetic reality and toward its possible "extension" as cosmogenetic "analogical fact." However, you asked the most important question of all, the Adept's Question: ~How does the incorporeal control the corporeal?~ It does not matter that you may or may not have asked the question from the point of view of someone who--not yet persuaded that there is a demonstrable link between the two--is not yet fully persuaded that it is possible. It is still a good question. It does not matter that an Adept, on the other hand, may or may not simply continue to ask the question in order to make himself or herself a better Adept--i.e., able to do more and more ~practical things in this world~ more and more easily. It is still a good question. Thanks for raising it, Paul, and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 17 17:32:05 1996 Date: 17 Aug 96 13:32:05 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: To Liesel: Beatles and Rules Message-Id: <960817173205_72723.2375_FHP36-1@CompuServe.COM> Liesel: > I thought I really disliked rock 'n roll. It's too loud and the >beat is too pronounced & steady. But a few weeks ago I asked one of our >summer college kids to lend me some of her rock disks, to copy for >Konstantin, and the stuff she gave me was gentle & melodious, and I thought, >quite nice. Some of the sounds the instruments produced were far out, but >not jarring, so I thought they were innovative & interesting. My mother was a chaperone for a group, including myself, of guitar students that attended a Beatles concert in 65'. The din of the screaming drowned out the music, but her willingness to go to concerts extended to even my college years, including one by Tiny Tim. There was never any criticism at my house when I played the Who's Tommy album every night for six months. This kind of tolerance led me to be surprised by the intolerance I noted from other people, some of who happened to be members of the Society. One is entitled to one's own preferences, but that's as far as it goes. I'd wondered if there were some esoteric (real or unreal) reasons behind their ideas. That somehow, certain types of music can influence you in good or bad ways. >On the other >had, last year my cusin invited me to her daughter's wedding. It was quite a >gala affair, & it cost me several $100 to get there, stay there & give a >wedding present. The dancing was done to very loud rock. I couldn't take it. >I walked out, & my cusin didn't forgive me until very recently. Sounds strange. Usually wedding bands play all types of music, including the hokey-pokey and Elvis. Maybe that's how the wedded couple wanted it! -Ann E. Bermingham From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 17 18:32:36 1996 Date: 17 Aug 96 14:32:36 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Manual for Revolution by HPB? Message-Id: <960817183236_74024.3352_BHT147-1@CompuServe.COM> It's summertime and the living ain't easy where I'm at, so I am dropping in and out as usual. I hope the discussion on theos-roots regarding the Voice of the Silence won't die, it seems to be one of her works that is often neglected since it is more practical and even a little preachy as opposed to speculative and historical in the large sense of the Secret Doctrine. I taped a radio show by a group of fundamentalists regarding the New World Order conspiracy which was started (according to them) by HPB. I replayed it recently and they mention Blavatsky as having written something called "A MANUAL FOR REVOLUTION" where she (again according to this writer on the occult roots of the New Age) called for the assasination of world leaders. Sirhan SIrhan requested the Secret Doctrine after he was jailed and Hitler (again according to them) kept the SD on his nightstand as a guide and a justification for the Master Race ideal as spearhead of evolution etc. Is anyone familiar with the work: MANUAL FOR REVOLUTION. I've never seen it our lodge library. Is it a forgery or hoax. KPaul, I bet you know something about this. Summer Wishes Winter Dreams Namaste Keith Price From wichm@xs4all.nl Sat Aug 17 20:04:39 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:04:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608172004.WAA09593@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Cyril Scott I exchanged a few letters somewhere on 1958 with him in respect of his introduction to "The boy who saw true". He was considered a talented musician, but after he started "dabbling in the occult" (as one book put it) he lost his gift. EDGAR CAYCE. I had some correspondence with Hugh Lynn. Although his father had remarkable things to say in the readings, amongst them was a lot of chaff on future calamities, the life of Jesus etc. that better be forgotten. The theory of his unconscious mind linking with others reminds me of the Super-ESP theory of Gauld (SPR) to explain away spiritualist phenomena. PARACELSUS. Not much on that besides that I looked him up for a friend on Internet. The search-engines came up with quite a lot of information. My friend, a chemist, is not so much interested in the philosophical aspects as well as the practical discoveries he did on the properties of elements used in his experiments. According to him far too much occultism is interpreted in the description of his alchemy. Incidentally, was St. Alan of Seroxat a contemporary of St. Depri of Remeron? Michael From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sat Aug 17 21:49:59 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:49:59 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960818160215.1a7f01d2@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: To Cos: Beatles & Rules Chuck wrote > ... I went to my cabin and put Black >Sabbath on my boom box, and cranked it! It was great fun and shocked the >little old ladies to no end! Their prejudices probably go back to the >lunatic ravings of Cyril Scott, a man of no talent himself and his very >peculiar ideas (he wrote that Jazz was "Black Magic" which makes me wonder >if Verdi is Italian Magick), reinforced by the overworked imaginings of >poor, crazy Goeffrey Hodson who must surely have known what he was talking >about after he saw the Virgin Mary appear to him on his bathroom door. >(Where did they ever find that nutcase and why would anyone be DUMB enough >to take him seriously?) OK, Chuck, settle down. I already know that ignorance is power. I also sense a serious discussion somewhere in the rest of this post, and hope you won't be embarrassed if I admit to agreeing with quite a bit of it. No, I don't think you'll be embarrassed, Chuck. Nothing makes you embarrassed, Chuck. Murray Member TI and the TS in NZ From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 16:49:34 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:49:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <4mZOYGAegfFyEwtS@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Consciousness In-Reply-To: <199608170233.VAA13244@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 To Paul K: The bottom line to your question is that if we could reproduce it in the laboratory we would be gods (whatever gods are). I have an account of an OOBE somewhere which *might* throw some light on it - but of course we cannot 100% verify anyone's OOBE by scientific method. Amyhow, I will try and find the item and post it to the list for your or anyone else's interest, as something to ponder upon, perhaps. Defining terms: "Consciousness is knowledge of being - I know *that* I am, though I may not know *why* I am nor *how* I am." As for "undifferentiated consciousness" - this seems to me to be something of a contradiction in terms. Does it know that it's undifferentiated? If so, how? "The other day upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today - I wish that he would go away." Alan In message <199608170233.VAA13244@main.com>, "Paul M.M. Kieniewicz" writes >Richard Ihle writes, and others echo a similar view that, > >>And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated >>Consciousness comes FIRST. > >Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical >articles again and again. But what does it really mean? The idea that some >"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? > >How does it do this? > >How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity? Through >Psychokinesis? Does this happen on a microscopic level, like the mind >controling atoms, and if so - why is this process so difficult to duplicate >in the laboratory. Has anyone thought much about this? > >Paul K. > --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 16:56:45 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:56:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <9WNPUPANnfFyEwOW@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Chuck au lait In-Reply-To: <960817113133_503515698@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960817113133_503515698@emout07.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Fear not, it will a long time before I reach your record. :-) Did someone speak? > Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 17 22:02:37 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:02:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608172202.AAA12341@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: authorial reluctance (to Kim and Jerry S) Kim wrote: Dear Martin, could you specify what this authorial reluctance might be (you could be talking of anyone). Kim: see my posting on this in a previous digest. It boils down to sharing some of one's insights on matters that one has studied thoroughly and/or has experience in and is related to T/theosophy in any sense. K> I have made the observation that certain ancient texts are full of terms we connect with theosophical doctrines and that these terms disappear completely in translations. An example - in the Mandukya karika 4.92 Gaudapada mentions Adibuddha and the realition of "it" to the seventh principle, Shankara adds that this seventh principle is svabhavat. In short, someone aught to translate such material from a theosophical angle. To me it seems the best chance to lay our hands on some high quality eso teric material - and this is my angle described unreluctantly! In friendship, Kim It seems funny to me that you're refering to the one Upanishad I've got on my book shelf. (although this Upanishad is considered the most important one in the Muktikopanishad - so, your reference may not be incidental). I've got a translation by the advaita ashrama that runs like this (4.92): 'All Jivas are, by their very nature, illumined from the very beginning and they are ever immutable in their nature. He who, having known this, rests without (sees the needlessness of) seeking further knowledge, is alone capable of realising the Highest Truth.' This may be an akward translation of Gaudapada's karika, I've no idea (I know a little bit of Sanskrit but it would take me ages to translate this verse) Shankara's commentary (English translation) contains a reference to 'eternal light' which might be a translation of svabhavat(?) In the next karika there's an annotation by swami nikhilananda that: 'The previous Karika stated the condition which alone makes one capable of attaining to liberation. But this liberation is not something external or foreign to be achieved or acquired. The Self is, by its very nature, ever free and illumined. It has never been covered with a veil. Therefore one who understands the real import of Advaita Vedanta, realises himself as ever pure, free and illumined and automatically ceases from making efforts at gaining further knowledge' This annotation made me smile when I read it. This type of monism may breed lazy people, I think, although it contains some truth in the sense that one doesn't have to look 'somewhere out' to find liberation. That does not mean that karma yoga is unnecessary or meaningless. Also, this type of monism (at least as it is presented by this swami) neglects the fact that we *learn through experience*. It's not enough to sit down and think that one is enlightened already. What do you think? ----------- Jerry Schueler wrote: Maybe it was me? I don't like to talk about it, mainly because my new book (out yesterday) is more magic than Theosophy. In fact, it is a blend of Enochian Magic and Tantricism, two no-no's in theosophical circles, so I naturally am "reluctant" to talk about it. Jerry: I know that these topics are no-no in TSs, but on theos-l things may be different. Regarding magic, Theosophical teachings state that our whole life is magic: thinking, speaking, acting.. It is only the motive which is important. G de P gives directions for using one's thinking faculty in a way that enables the subtle energies to do their work in one's mind (becoming transparant to these energies and thus becoming a channel for expression for these energies on the physical plane). He writes about that in ~Esoteric teachings I~. Pretty much magic I'd say (and I came across this type of ideas also in Western Hermeticism, Quabalah and Gnosis). So, magic is not really (or should not really be) a no in Theosophical circles. It may be different for magick, but I don't know much about that. I don't know anything about Enochian Magic as how it relates to the above, so I can't comment on that. Maybe you can provide a little description of it? Tantricism is a different case, except when the original tantrical works are meant by this, I think. Often Tantricism is associated with sex magic(k) nowadays, and that is generally considered to be a 'no' in Theosophical circles. Some think of it as an abuse of the creative power. Well, I don't like to generalize. Based upon my own experiences I'm inclined to say this: it might be benificial to some people in some phase of their life (example: for those who have a blockage in their emotional nature pertaining to sex and repress all such feelings) but I would be very careful in recommending it to anyone. Of course, people choose for themselves what they want to do, nowadays, so they will find out what works for them and what doesn't. It's a delicate topic anyway, so I wouldn't expect a big discussion on that on this list. But, maybe you have something other in mind, I don't know. What is this tantricism in your books all about? Martin From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 17 22:02:43 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:02:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608172202.AAA12350@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Martin's question Paul wrote: >Dear Martin, You asked about my approach in the Cayce book. I thought I had already stated it. No, you didn't. Thanks for providing some overview. P>Christian Theosopher, which examines the universalistic neo-Gnostic interpretation of Christianity in the readings. Cayce has drawn interest from many people I think. Does ARE-press present ample information on him on the internet? P>Esoteric Psychologist, which investigates Cayce's model of the human constitution, his meditation guidelines, astrological system, interpretation of attitudes and emotions, pattern of group work, and explanation of psychic phenomena. This would be the most interesting part to me. Does Cayce's model of the human constitution deviate considerably from Theosophy? What about his explanation of psychic phenomena? I don't ask or expect a very lengthy answer from you, but maybe some short summary or highlights on these matters? P>Clairvoyant Time Traveler, which examines Cayce's portrayal of the past and future, with emphasis on Atlantis, ancient Egypt, the time of Christ, and the near future. Cayce predicts the inundation of parts of the USA in the next coming years, if I remember correctly. Steiner did the same for Europe: Holland (my country), part of Germany, and some other countries, I think. My personal opinion is that this is not going to happen. We'll know in a couple of years! My guess is that Steiner and Cayce were able to read the astral light/collective subconsciousness, but were not able to sift fantasy from reality in this respect (inundation) or they may have the timescale wrong. [Blavatsky predicts inundations to happen in about 16,000 years or so- a totally different timescale.] P> The problem is, all mistaken notions ever thought by anyone are out there to be tapped into as easily as all truths ever known-- and an entranced person cannot distinguish among them very well. Indeed. Martin From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 17 22:39:08 1996 Date: 17 Aug 96 18:39:08 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Beatles and Rules Message-Id: <960817223907_72723.2375_FHP32-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck the Heretic: >It is very hard to practice tolerance when one is getting violently ill, but >the concept is not without merit. >On the other hand, when one has the opportunity to annoy people, one should >do so. Ah, yes. It makes perfect logic. One can annoy people at every opportunity and then they can can enjoy the pleasure of breaking the rules, lose their tolerance and violently punch out your lights. : - ) -Ann E. Bermingham From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 17 22:46:28 1996 Date: 17 Aug 96 18:46:28 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Dimensions Message-Id: <960817224628_76400.1474_HHL57-2@CompuServe.COM> >Everyone who talks about higher dimensions should define in a clear >manner what s/he is talking about. No further spatio-temporal dimensions >are known at this time. Not quite true. The theory of superstrings requires at least 10 dimensions to explain it. The theory has it that after the Big Bang 4 dimensions (3 of space, and one of time) expanded outwardly while 6 dimensions compressed inwardly. They were "rolled up" within themselves. As the 4-dimensional external universe is expanding, so the 6-dimensional internal world is compressing or shrinking. Of course this is only a mathematical theory at present, but theoretical scientists are much at home with multi-dimensions. Although multi-dimensions are possible (and sometimes required) in mathematics, there are no real known physical correspondences to them. The 4 dimensions of spacetime relate only to the physical plane. Perhaps the other dimensions relate to other planes? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 17 22:46:22 1996 Date: 17 Aug 96 18:46:22 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Consciousness vs Body Message-Id: <960817224622_76400.1474_HHL57-1@CompuServe.COM> >>And again, that fundamental premise, it seems to me, is that Undifferentiated >>Consciousness comes FIRST. > >Do we know what we mean by that statement? Yes - you read it in Theosophical >articles again and again. But what does it really mean? This lamentation is exactly what the "process" theosophists have been saying as to the problem with "core" theosophists--book learning only goes so far. When you actually raise consciousness beyond the human and corporeal condition, e.g., when you bring the thinking process to a stop, instead of death or nothingness, there is a very intense consciousness. In psychological terms, this is shifting consciousness from the ego to the self (Jung's definition here, as the central archetype of the psyche). So, if consciousness survives body, then it stands to reason that it must be more fundamental, and thus must "come first." But until this is experienced, it simply has to be taken on faith. BTW, Jung taught that the psyche pre-exists the ego-body and post-exists them as well. Our ego is born with the body and dies with it. > The idea that some >"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? >How does it do this? By a process of self-expression. One of the inherent characteristics of the Divine Monad is its creativity--it has an innate desire to self-express. But it is the Ego that does it, not the personal ego. The ego-body relationship is two-way, while the Ego--body relationship is one-way. Think of it as buddhi vs manas, if that makes it any better. The body is an expression of atma-buddhi, but manas is its expression too and so there is a sharing of control between manas and the physical body. >How does an incorporeal mind control a corporeal entity? Through >Psychokinesis? It never does. Manas and the lower principles enter the fetus at conception (actually the fetus is their first physical expression) and mind is therefore corporeal from the start. >Does this happen on a microscopic level, like the mind >controling atoms, and if so - why is this process so difficult to duplicate >in the laboratory. Has anyone thought much about this? Yes but not atoms, which are too large. Rather mind controls via the subatomic particles that make up the atoms. It can't be duplicated in the lab yet, because these particles only exist as such in particle generators for tiny time periods. These subatomic particles, including virtual particles, are very susceptible to thought and emotion (no, I can't prove this in a laboratory). Jerry S. Member, TI From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 17 23:21:18 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 19:21:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960817192118_387661945@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: World Parliament of Religions--Again, Again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.582.emout17.mail.aol.com.840324078" --PART.BOUNDARY.0.582.emout17.mail.aol.com.840324078 Content-ID: <0_582_840324078@emout17.mail.aol.com.49512> Content-type: text/plain Okay, let's see if it works now. Now remember, this was just something I threw together three years ago for the fun of it so don't expect great writing. Chuck the Heretic --PART.BOUNDARY.0.582.emout17.mail.aol.com.840324078 Content-ID: <0_582_840324078@emout17.mail.aol.com.49513> Content-type: text/plain; name="REFLECT.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable REFLECTIONS ON THE WORLD PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS By Charles W. Cosimano =0D It could have been a nightmare. It certainly began that way with the opening plenary transmogrified into = a human cattle drive. Who knew what incompetent son of a bitch came up w= ith idea of jamming 6,500 people into a hall and then trying to let them = into the ballrooms five at a time. Some imbecile, no doubt. But the Par= liament paid a high price for it, for one of the many who did not get int= o the main ballroom was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and the result= was that the coverage of the World Parliament of Religions in that paper= was, shall we say, underdone. And it did not get better once we were inside, with the unfortunate bleat= ings of the Mayor of Chicago, a man so utterly inarticulate that it is am= azing that he can sign his own name, blighting the room with his politica= l presence. It could have been a nightmare. But in spite of the horror of the opening plenary, something unusual was = happening at the Palmer House. In the overflow room, a woman from the Ar= chdiocese of Chicago and a man from one of the Pagan groups went together= to find out why the sound was so bad. during the Native American ritual.= (It later turned out that no one on the platform could hear them either.= ) People who were total strangers had supper together. Something different= , something not a part of our normal experience was happening. Another indication of nightmare, the evening plenary, featuring a pitiful= lunatic who talks to his dead wife and a bunch of the most self-righteou= s, religious, pseudo-leaders on Mother Earth attempting to bore everyone = to death, and damn near succeeding. Imagine, if you will, thousands of p= eople in an airless ballroom, being suffocated by pious hot air. The eve= ning was a disaster which made those of us who actually were foolish enou= gh to sit all the way through consider ourselves lucky to be alive. And then came Sunday. What a potential day for unmitigated alarmism as t= he keynote moron, Gerald Barney, escaped from the dinosaur suit and promo= ted his peculiarly fascistic vision of the future. Clearly not only had = the man had seen The Road Warrior one too many times, but no one had both= ered to tell him that it was only a movie. By Sunday supper, it was clea= r that our worst nightmares may have been all too mild by comparison. Yet it was that Sunday evening that the first miracle occurred. I found = myself sitting behind a Buddhist nun from Arkansas, of all the godforsake= n places, and it turned out, to both of our amazement, that she was the s= ister of my senior high school English teacher! Such events do not occur= in everyday life. And thus it began. A week that promised to be nothing more than a glorio= us waste of time turned into a fascinating exercise in the potential of p= eople from different beliefs to find a common ground, even if that ground= was disgust with the organizers of the extravaganza and a realization of= the utter uselessness of leaders in a world where people can communicate= among themselves without pompous intermediaries. As the week went on it was clear that this was to be the great coming out= party for the Pagans of the world, to the unmitigated horror of the Gre= ek Orthodox. In spite of the vegetarian predilections of many of the par= ticipants, roast Christian seemed to be a very popular dish and was serve= d all over the Palmer House. = And so it continued. The participants, in their own way, took over the e= vents in a way totally unforeseen by the organizing group. The official = Parliament, with its plenaries and leaders and dictated ethics statement = was pushed farther and farther aside and even the speech by the Dalai Lam= a seemed to be a mere afterthought. The real work of the Parliament was = done by those whom had only been supposed to be spectators and by the tim= e the week was over, the so-called critical issues, of which so much had = been made in the pre-Parliament literature, did not seem so critical afte= r all. There was, in fact, a sneaking hope by many that Robert Muller an= d Gerald Barney would be consigned to the same padded cell, such little v= alue was placed upon their words. Thus in the end there were two World Parliaments of Religion taking place= in the same place at the same time. One, a gathering of different peopl= e from all over the world who left feeling that something great, albeit l= argely undefinable, had occurred. The other the official Parliament of t= he organizers, a gathering that ended rather like Shakespeare's definitio= n of life, "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying n= othing." 3 =0D --PART.BOUNDARY.0.582.emout17.mail.aol.com.840324078-- From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 23:09:04 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:09:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Nonsense In-Reply-To: <199608172004.WAA09593@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608172004.WAA09593@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>, wichm@xs4all.nl writes >Incidentally, was St. Alan of Seroxat a contemporary of St. Depri of Remeron? > >Michael I'll have to look up St. Depri of Remeron - possibly related to Lady Di of Azepam. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 23:42:43 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:42:43 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Consciousness vs Body In-Reply-To: <960817224622_76400.1474_HHL57-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960817224622_76400.1474_HHL57-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >BTW, Jung taught that the psyche pre-exists >the ego-body and post-exists them as well. Our ego is born with >the body and dies with it. I would be interested in a citation here if you can find it, Jerry. I sold my part set of his collected works some years ago in order to eat. [sigh] ALan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 18 00:10:04 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:10:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Consciousness Mime-Version: 1.0 This file and others is in my directory on URL: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/wisdom/alans/ (Looks and behaves like an ftp or gopher site, but can also take you to a web page or more) -------------------------------------------- Saturday February 19th 1977 Woken by 'bad dream'. I was looking for my parents (--?) and was recalling in the dream that should they hear me making sounds of a certain kind they would wake me up. In the dream I was very anxious, as I could hear the sounds, but nothing was happening - I was not being woken. I passed along a section of suburban street, not in the body, and found the source of the sound. It was my own body, which was lying face down in the bed, moaning loudly with each out-breath. Surprised, I dropped down into it immediately, and awoke, trembling. Realising the significance of the 'dream' I endeavoured to recall it, or as much of it as possible, and to hold this recollection until I awoke again later in the usual manner, which I was able to do. NOTES: In the dream, my "parents" were supposed to have instructions regarding waking me if necessary. This can only be symbolic, as I live 140 miles away from them. I was looking for the source of the sound myself, *because* I had not been woken. I was away from my body. By implication, I knew I was away from it, otherwise I would not have left 'instructions' to wake me in the event of my (body) making a noise. I was aware of myself looking for body in order to get back into it and to awaken it, in the same way as one is aware of events happening to someone else. It would be true to say that I was watching the proceedings with a detached and observant attitude. What then is 'I' ? Certainly not my body - that was moaning on its own. I was aware of it dimly, but clearly expected someone else to deal with it. I only went back to it when it was apparent that this was not going to happen. I was aware of myself searching for my body, *as an observer of myself.* So I am not that self which was looking for its body, though for part of the dream I am identified with it, and anxious. The clearest recollection on first waking was of the dream details and the anxiety. On looking at the event more closely, at that time I was aware of my actual detachment from the events, which I observed without identification. CONCLUSIONS 'I' is not my body, because it can moan in my absence, and 'I' can be aware of this to the extent of hurrying hack to it in order to stop it. 'I' is not that self that was away from the body, and anxious to return because of the body's distress, for I had awareness of this 'self' in the same way as I would of anyone else. The 'out of the body' self was anxious. I, observing the whole thing, was not. 'I' am 'I'. I have a body, which can moan in its sleep, whilst my 'self' is away from it. I can observe myself away from my body, and instruct my memory to recall the event, *once the event is brought to my attention.* 'I' can then utilise the faculties of both 'self' and body to recall the occurrence at a later time, and to record it with as much clarity as 'I' observed it. My body had distress - it moaned. My 'self' had anxiety - it looked for the body. 'I' had no feeling - 'I' simply saw. I who saw made these notes, using the faculties inherent in body and 'self'. ('Self' objects to this, insisting on its independence from 'I'. It is rather like a disobedient child. Therefore 'self' sees 'I' as a parent - the parents of the dream sequence perhaps, which is possibly how 'I' became involved, by detachment, in the events). I am not body. I am not the body's complaints. I am not anxiety, or any of the feelings attributable to 'self'. ('Self' is very cross at this !) I am simply I. I possess attributes such as body, with its attributes, and 'self' with its attributes, but they are possessions only, following their own natures and laws. 'Self' has some independence from body, but is bound to return to it if need be, and, it would seem, to advise of its absence. I can have awareness of this - probably again according to laws of being, but am not involved in any way other to observe and record. I am I, and I am. I know that I am and that I possess qualities, which qualities I am not. The nature and activity of these qualities of body and 'self' changes in behaviour and mood, and also in function. *I do not.* (Some part, if not all of the last sentence is the identification of 'self' with my observation - I observe it to be so! The child seeks to emulate, and *thereby to control* the parent!) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 23:39:14 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:39:14 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Beatles and Rules In-Reply-To: <960817223907_72723.2375_FHP32-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960817223907_72723.2375_FHP32-1@CompuServe.COM>, "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes >Chuck the Heretic: >>It is very hard to practice tolerance when one is getting violently ill, but >>the concept is not without merit. >>On the other hand, when one has the opportunity to annoy people, one should >>do so. > >Ah, yes. It makes perfect logic. One can annoy people at every opportunity and >then they can can enjoy the pleasure of breaking the rules, lose their tolerance >and violently punch out your lights. : - ) > >-Ann E. Bermingham Good job you aren't at an LCC meeting - that's *your* promotion gone up in flames ... (well it would be if they respected women in the church). Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From ramadoss@eden.com Sun Aug 18 03:18:30 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:18:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: World Parliament of Religions--Again, Again In-Reply-To: <960817192118_387661945@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Chuck: Glad to your summary. I was considering attending the Parliament. Glad I did not. Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 17 18:43:44 1996 Date: 17 Aug 96 14:43:44 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: LIGHT ON THE PATH before VOS??? Message-Id: <960817184344_74024.3352_BHT147-2@CompuServe.COM> We are studying 1) AT the FEET OF THE MASTER, 2) VOICE OF THE SILENCE and 3) LIGHT ON THE PATH. From what I can surmis, LIGHT ON THE PATH was written before VOICE OF THE SILIENCE. In it, Mabel Collines uses the term 'Voice of the silence" several time. i found these quotation from the section entitled "Note on Rule 21" - -Once having passed through the storm and attained peace, it is then always possible to learn, even though the disciple waver, hesitate and turn aside. the voice of the silence remains within him, and though he leave the path utterlym yet one day it will resound and rend him asunder and separate his passions from his divine possibilites. - Collins It seems that the term voice of the silence predates the publication of VOS as was used by Collins and others. Is this a term from Buddhism or is it a poetic expression that was common in the day or what? I have no idea. It seems that it was not created ex nihlo by HPB though. Namaste Keith Price From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 18 04:21:53 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:21:53 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960818002153_387833534@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: World Parliament of Religions--Again, Again Doss, Actually it was fun once everyone realized that they were there to party and not worry about the sort of nonsense the organizers had in mind. I understand that Robert Mueller has moved on with his life and now talks to someone else's dead wife. Lunatic! But Gerald has found honest work on television with his dinosaur suit. Chuck the Heretic From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Sun Aug 18 08:45:24 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:45:24 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608180845.AA25973@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Manual for Revolution by HPB? Keith Price writes: >I taped a radio show by a group of fundamentalists regarding the >New World Order conspiracy which was started (according to >them) by HPB. I replayed it recently and they mention Blavatsky >as having written something called "A MANUAL FOR REVOLUTION" >where she (again according to this writer on the occult roots of >the New Age) called for the assassination of world leaders. >Sirhan SIrhan requested the Secret Doctrine after he was jailed >and Hitler (again according to them) kept the SD on his >nightstand as a guide and a justification for the Master Race >ideal as spearhead of evolution etc. > >Is anyone familiar with the work: MANUAL FOR REVOLUTION. I've >never seen it our lodge library. Is it a forgery or hoax. JHE If anything, the survival of this story gives credence to an expression quoted by HPB that: Error run on an inclined plane. The Story of HPB writing the MANUAL FOR REVOLUTIONARIES began following the June 1968 democratic primary. I remember that it was abound 1:30 in the morning, and I had stayed up to listen to Robert Kennedy's speech. By that time it was pretty clear to the convention that he would be our next President, providing someone didn't put a bullet through his head like they did with his brother. That memory was still fresh in my mind and I was a bit apprehensive about this convention. Sure enough, as he finished his speech and turned to escape the crowds through a hotel kitchen, Sirhan Sirhan nailed him through the head right in front of the cameras. The football player Rosie Greer then jumped Sirhan. It was pandemonium over the next week. Sirhan was jailed and the news broadcasts kept the public informed of everything he ate and said. It was the next evening that the media told the world that Sirhan requested from his jailers a copy of THE SECRET DOCTRINE and TALKS ON AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER. The media ignored the Leadbeater book and focused on Blavatsky. John Chancellor announced on the NBC Evening News the same evening that Blavatsky was a the founding leader of a cult called the Theosophical Society and was a revolutionary. She called for the assassination of world leaders to bring about a better world. Further, that she had published a book called the MANUAL FOR REVOLUTIONARIES. Walter Winchell followed up in his syndicated newspaper column the same information. You have to keep in mind that Winchell was the biggest name in news writing and went back to the radio days. He did his television show with the sound of teletypes in the background, giving the viewing audience the impression that he is some kind of demigod with every possible world event pouring through those infallible teletypes. In other words, he gave the illusion of having had one hell of a lot more credibility then any human could possibly have. NBC followed up the next week (June 13) with Johnny Carson interviewing Truman Capote on the Tonight Show. Capote was the author of a best selling and thoroughly gruesome book called IN COLD BLOOD. Capote repeated The story about Blavatsky and her authorship of the MANUAL, and added that the MANUAL details how the assassination of prominent figures paved the way to revolution. All of the major Stations and Newspapers followed up, repeating the story and replaying Capote's interview. Representatives and individuals from all of the Theosophical Organizations responded to the reports and in one or two cases got spots on day-time television and radio shows to refute the story. But it was Winchell, Capote and Steinbacher that got 99 plus percent of the attention. By late June, a writer for the John Birch Society, who went by the name Rex Westerfield, published an Analysis of the assassination events for a magazine called "The Review of the News." Here he describes "Mrs. Blavatsky" as a Russian Princess and founded the "illuminist Theosophical Church" in New York "in the 1880's." He also mentions Bishop James A. Pike and former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara as "two of the present leaders of the New York Theosophical Church." In July, John Steinbacher had a small book out called "Robert Frances Kennedy: The Man: The Mysticism: The Murder." The book repeated the same allegations. By September, THE BOOKMANS WEEKLY, a trade journal for book dealers was filled with ads from dealers all over the country begging for copies of the MANUAL FOR REVOLUTIONARIES. The WEEKLY called the MANUAL "the nonsuch book." Other publications followed. One by W.S. McBirnie, published a little book called "The Assassins." Here he also cites the NBC Newscast and Walter Winchell as source for the information that Blavatsky wrote a book called MANUAL FOR REVOLUTION. Without going into the endless details, It turned out that Walter Winchell cited John Steinbacher as the source of his information. Steinbacher's publisher later inserted an errata sheet in his book to disclaim the story of HPB writing the alleged MANUAL FOR REVOLUTIONARIES. Robert Welch, then founder and head of the John Birch Society leaves the responsibility of the story to Rex Westerfield. Westerfield stuck to his story but never substantiated it. McBirnie also claimed to have received his information from Steinbacher. Steinbacher cites the "Dictionary of American Biography" for 1929 as the source of the information about the MANUAL FOR REVOLUTION. No such reference has even been found. Where John Chancellor got his information on the June 6th NBC broadcast is another mystery. He claims that it was on a slip of paper handed to him just before the Broadcast. From there the trail fades out. Walter Winchell's son committed suicide on Christmas day 1968 and Winchell went on an "indefinite vacation" and never returned to broadcasting. Truman Capote became a drug addict and lost all credibility with the public before dying a few years later. Johnny Carson is now retired. Rex Westerfield is alive and well and living under his real name in Central California. Steinbacher seems to have disappeared. Keith, I would deeply appreciate a copy of your tape of that radio show, and will gladly pay for your expenses and trouble. Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From apriorip@earthlink.net Sun Aug 18 13:47:26 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 08:47:26 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <32171EEE.463B@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: HPB & Esoteric Psychology References: <2.2.32.19960816163824.006753ac@pop.slip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >The important thing is to remember the social >and cultural context in which Blavatsky worked. She did the best she could >in a period when materialism was gleefully and arrogantly triumphant, and >really deep ignorance and wide spectrum bigotry were rampant. Right! Regarding esoteric psychology and astrology the approach I have taken is to place the information on this topic from the original books into a database on the computer and use selected phrases to assess and interpret charts. This keeps me as pure as possible to the Teaching so that from this mare information can be gradually worked out. There is complimentary information linked about this at http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From apriorip@earthlink.net Sun Aug 18 14:20:19 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:20:19 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <321726A3.6D9A@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Nature of Space - dimensions defined References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Great discussion on this topic -- thanks everyone. Regarding dimensions, in Cosmogenesis HPB does say that material space cannot be stretched beyond three dimensions and that three dimensional aspects are expression of the "extensibility" property of matter. Higher dimensions occur by sensing higher properties of matter. The next one beyond extensibility is what she calls "permeability" -- allowing for simultanous rotation within or through while also around a center. Cheers, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From apriorip@earthlink.net Sun Aug 18 14:28:22 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 09:28:22 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <32172886.915@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Nature of space -- Life & Consciousness References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The idea in the postulate is that Life as Spirit touches matter causing the spark of consciousness to be created. This spark (the soul) is immortal as far as matter is concerned and cycles through many forms with it's goal eventually to become "consciously" one with the Life. The goal of evolution is first to bring together spirit and matter to create the quality of consciousness and then to evolve this consciousness through personality so as to raise the consciousness in free awareness to the level of spirit -- creating a new enhanced Monadic awareness. We have: Monad - Life - Spirit Soul - Consciousness - Quality Form - Personality - Matter Love, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 18 16:14:14 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 12:14:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960818121414_181753494@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Manual for Revolution by HPB? Oh, I hope she did write one. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 18 16:15:08 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 12:15:08 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960818121508_181753918@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cos: Beatles & Rules Murray, All kidding aside, there is a serious problem in the TS with regard to music. But I'm inclined to think that that will pass along with the generation that holds to such concerns. And you're right. It takes a lot to embarrass me. (Though if someone in the TS ever gets their hands on the porno films I made 25 years ago...) :-) Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 18 16:15:16 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 12:15:16 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960818121516_181753980@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Beatles and Rules Ann, Why do you think I have a couple of black belts? Chuck the Heretic From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 18 18:16:59 1996 Date: 18 Aug 96 14:16:59 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Magic, Enochian Style Message-Id: <960818181659_76400.1474_HHL51-1@CompuServe.COM> >So, magic is not really (or should not really be) a no in Theosophical >circles. It may be different for magick, but I don't know much about that. >I don't know anything about Enochian Magic as how it relates to the above, >so I can't comment on that. Maybe you can provide a little description >of it? It shouldn't be, I agree. Especially as HPB both practiced it and discussed it. But it is. The very word raises theosophical hackles, as Chuck can tell you (of course Chuck doesn't care as much as I do). Magick, with a final k, is Crowley's definition: "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will." By this definition we are all magicians, and life itself is magical. Enochian Magic is a form of ritual magic, but I have introduced a yogic form that I call Enochian Yoga, for those who don't like ritual. Started by Dr. John Dee, it was elaborated on by the Golden Dawn and Crowley. I have done my own elaborations on it as well. Today it is a stand-alone magical school that some people use as a religion (kinda like Theosophy). Its main claim to fame is its unique map of the magical universe, which is every bit as colorful and enticing as the Tree of Life. There are four Watchtowers, one for each of the four lower cosmic planes. Each Watchtower contains 156 Squares, and each Square is a unique region or subplane of the invisible worlds. Each Square has a ruling deity, and so on. Basically, I theosophied Enochian Magic and turned it into a workable and relatively complete magical system. For this, some regard me as an Adept, while others regard me as a cheap charlatan (for example, I have been called an "armchair magican" because I do not belong to any magical organization, and my Enochian Physics was called "more about Theosophy than about magic" and so on). >Tantricism is a different case, except when the original tantrical works >are meant by this, I think. Often Tantricism is associated with sex magic(k) >nowadays, and that is generally considered to be a 'no' in Theosophical >circles Yes, but there is sex magic and sex magic. If we agree with Jung's theory of the anima and animus, then real sex magic is nothing more than the process of becoming a whole and complete person--a re-unification of the psyche. However, theosophists throw out the baby with the bath water and dismiss the whole subject. > What is this tantricism in your books all about? It is about feeling whole and complete--a samadhi if you like. You see yourself as the King of the Watchtower, and unite with the primary Goddess (or vice versa if you are a woman). This union can be either a physical union as done in ritual, or a psychic (visualized) union as is done in yoga. This is all because I am coming at the topic from an Enochian viewpoint, and such a visualization or ritual makes sense from this perspective. But the same result can be achieved by other means because the goal is a degree of samadhi, or emptiness and bliss. Thanks for asking, Martin. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 18 18:17:04 1996 Date: 18 Aug 96 14:17:04 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Cayce's Predictions Message-Id: <960818181704_76400.1474_HHL51-2@CompuServe.COM> > My guess is that Steiner and Cayce were able to read >the astral light/collective subconsciousness, but were not able to sift >fantasy from reality in this respect (inundation) or they may have the >timescale wrong. [Blavatsky predicts inundations to happen in about 16,000 >years or so- a totally different timescale.] In this case, I wouldn't call it "fantasy" as such. The future is a world of possibilities, and such inundations are among the likely future outcomes--but things can change. I have often thought that if we had had a nuclear war (which seemed very likely just a few years ago) a lot of Cayce's predictions may have come true. Remember, Cayce was in the pre-atomic era, and if he had visualized such a war, he would have had to make up words for it. I wonder if Paul has thought of this? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 18 18:17:05 1996 Date: 18 Aug 96 14:17:05 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Undifferentiated Consciousness Message-Id: <960818181705_76400.1474_HHL51-3@CompuServe.COM> Alan: >As for "undifferentiated consciousness" - this seems to me to be >something of a contradiction in terms. Does it know that it's >undifferentiated? If so, how? I don't think it does. Its when we return to normal human consciousness and we recall the experience that we say to ourselves, "Wow, my consciousness was really undifferentiated!" Jerry S. Member, TI From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 18 18:25:16 1996 Date: 18 Aug 96 14:25:16 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Nucleus of Elitism Message-Id: <960818182516_74024.3352_BHT152-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >Some one has pointed about rather strongly, that the First Objective states a >NUCLEUS of universal brotherhood. Thus an elitism may be inferred that many are >called, but few are chosen seem to apply. Off your original topic, Keith, but worth following up I think. This aspect of 1st Object has bothered me for some time, and it has also transferred itself to the TI objectives. The better approach, IMHO, would have been to form *nuclei* rather than a single nucleus, in either version. Thus there could be any number of (say) TI "nuclear" families all part of the larger whole, and all interconnected through TI (or TSA, or whatever). Then Lodges, branches, meetings, whatever they are called or however constructed, would be independent in truth, and not only in name ... This could be a topic for TI-L - anyone care to follow up there? (cc. to same). Keith: I am very concerned about my status as a card carrying theosophist, in the sense that the big distintiction of theosophy from other types of "ancient wisdom" including say shamanism, and perhaps the original attraction back in the late 19th century to many was a type of spiritual Darwinism, not unlike social Darwinism in some ways if take to it conclusion of an elite core taking control of world governments and scientific and social machinery for the benefit of mankind and the planet, because the Neanderthal fundamentalists want to stagnate and destroy the planet and exploit women, children and natural resources which was in large part true during the 19th century perhaps. Thus Theosophy seems to imply that there are spiritual Masters that are evolved because of their sacrifices of their "animal natures" to the evolutionary goal and thus are the way showers for a nucleus of humanity who can become more evolved and enter politics sometimes obviously as in the case of Annie Bessant in India and perhaps more covertly by Blavatsky as a supposed spy. The whole idea is not presented directly in any one place. The original hooks to read the SD include a lot of the same ideas that we are all divine etc. and can uncover and use it in some way. In America, we feel a natural tendency toward non-elitism and hate the idea of royalty or anyone that is too "stuck-up" These prejudices are not shared and other countries and cultures still cling to the idea of the elite as a necessary step to keep the masses on the right track. Is whole earth ecology an excuse for a communist type control and planning? These are ideas that are brewing just below the surface for me. Has anyone ever thought anything like this? That the appeal of the Masters is in some way, the appeal of (God forbid) a sports star who seems larger than life, and that I can share in his or her glory by collecting trading cards the way some collect tidbits of thesophical history? The real danger which is again and again stated that the first thing must be the destruction of the childish, ego centered selfish desires of the lower bodies. This is a recurrent theme in texts like the VOS. The danger, for me, I am afraid, is that someone like Krishnamurti may come along and say these elitist notions about the "path" are all bosh and fliim flam. Namaste Keith Price From pmmkien@main.com Sun Aug 18 20:22:32 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 15:22:32 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608182011.PAA14201@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Consciousness Thankyou Max, Richard and Alan for your replies to my questions re. consciousness. Richard writes: >If I correctly read between the lines of your comments, Paul, I detected a >certain irritation with the way theosophical words often roll down the >assembly line, resulting in a big end-product of uncertain meaning--or no >meaning at all. If this is the case, I share your sentiment. Yes - that is the problem. We are dealing with a big problem when speaking of how the mind and body relate (as also Max and Alan pointed out). Unfortunately theosophy is poorly equipped to answer it and in my view has never really grappled with the issues. Instead we have there a mythology, and we write about "the eternal parent" or "undifferentiated consciousness.." (I agree Alan, the expression is meaningless), and write whole volumes that are, in the final analysis, total gibberish. Sure - it's great mythology - but how about waking up from these "dreams" and "symbols". The mythology itself may have no meaning except as an intellectal exercise. (There are also societies of people who study the Klingon language) Theosophy cannot be said to grapple with the issue of what is consciousness - the way that Descartes, Kant, Husserl, Heiddeger or even Krishnamurti did. That's why I suggest that if we want to understand the mind-body connection, and determine for example whether it's even relevant to be talking about consciousness as seperate from matter, we need to leave behind the corpus of 19th century Theosophical literature - and avail ourselves of some of the efforts taking place in our own century. Max writes: >The most promising area of research in the field is an aprroach based on >the theory of neural networks, i.e. multiply-connected neurons (real >neurons or neural chips). It has been discovered that such networks can >store huge amounts of information in the form of more or less stable >patterns of excitation of the entire system. It was hypothesized that >memories might be such excitations. Neural networks may be trained >(unlike ordinary computers that are to be programmed) so that can use >their skills to solve problems. > Yes and no. Although neural nets appear to simulate many "human characteristics" - because these are program that "learn" - There are still many examples of problems specific to human consciousness that cannot be simulated by a neural net or by another kind of computer. I recommend - to anyone interested in these problems the works of Roger Penrose "The Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind" Paul K. From RIhle@aol.com Sun Aug 18 23:03:34 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 19:03:34 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960818190333_262725436@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Consciousness Alan writes> >Defining terms: "Consciousness is knowledge of being - I know *that* I >am, though I may not know *why* I am nor *how* I am." Richard Ihle writes> Nicely put, Alan. We don't, of course, want to forget the " ~what~ I am," since one is always running into the "rationale for creation" which is often stated something like this: "In order to learn of its own Nature, Absolute Consciousness (Brahman) brought into being all that was unlike Itself." It apparently wants to know ~what~ It is, in other words. Alan> >As for "undifferentiated consciousness" - this seems to me to be >something of a contradiction in terms. Does it know that it's >undifferentiated? If so, how? > RI> I can sort of see what you are getting at here; however, it is probably important to remember that just as ~Prakriti~ is usually seen as the underlying "Primal Matter" or "Substance" out of which ~everything~ (and sometimes this ~everything~ really seems to include ~everything~--prana, physical atoms, ether, astral matter, emotion, thought, Spirit etc.) which is a component or ~later evolved~ on the non-consciousness side of the ledger, so also is Undifferentiated or "Pure" Consciousness (Purusa, Brahman, Atman, Self, Soul etc.) often regarded as a sort of "Universal Raw Material" of the consciousness side. Interaction, they say, of Undifferentiated Consciousness and "matter" is made possible by means of by its verisimilitude with Spirit, the most rarefied component of matter (making possible ~Atma-Buddhi~). Is any of this "true" in a common scientific sense? Who knows? Not me, I assure you. I am only interested in this model because of its heuristic value--viz. what it points to on a human rather than universe-building scale. And indeed, looked at with the aid of such a model, a human being seems like a most amazing opportunity for a construct like Undifferentiated Consciousness. Just from Darwin's standpoint, ~material~ evolution in humans has proceeded so far that entire new realms of emotional and mental nature (both regarded as "material") are present to ensnare and taint a little Undifferentiated Consciousness and thus create new and important points of contrast with Itself. A person often says, "I ~have~ a headache." Easy enough to say. However, in the private agony-space before one puts it into words, the secret, intimate, personal experience is probably this: "I ~am~ a headache." A little bit of Undifferentiated Consciousness's ~I AM~ has been "differentiated" by involvement with the material and has become at least temporarily "deluded." Fortunately, an "ego-formation" (semi-Self) coming into being at such a low physical level would not be likely (unless the pain is bad enough) to ~completely~ transmogrify a person in terms of consciousness. Some "untransformed" Undifferentiated Consciousness, still "riding" its Buddhi-manas vehicle, would remain, providing the person with the ongoing "Silent Watcher" of the situation. And when one thinks of it, that might be one very significant difference between animals and humans, mightn't it? An animal in pain could possibly ~completely become~ the pain, while the poor human not only could partially become the pain but could have the extra torture of watching himself or herself in pain as well. What a life. . . . Not Undifferentiated enough for my liking. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 18 23:20:54 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 19:20:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960818192053_262735039@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Manual for Revolution by HPB? Jerry, It sounds like the Manual nonsense was the sort of idiocy that John Chancellor was noted for in 1968. Our fundamentalist friends love to pick up on that sort of thing and I must confess it would have been more fun if HPB had written such a book. Just think how we could scare the pants off of the neighbors in Wheaton. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sun Aug 18 23:21:34 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 19:21:34 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960818192133_262735435@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: irc Well, I dropped in about 11 my time, which is 9 pacific, as Eldon was so kind as to remind me and no one was there, so the party must not have lasted too long. Pity. We'll have to try again some time. Chuck the Heretic From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Sun Aug 18 23:49:54 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 16:49:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: consciousness Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In response to Paul K.'s message: Of course not all of the theosophical writings on 'undifferentiated consciuousness' are mythology. Those written by enlightened authors are useful as, yes, symbols--the famous fingers pointing at the moon. We are repeatedly told why it's useful to study this material although it's beyond the grasp of the ordinary mind; let me summarize it here: 1. True occult symbols have meaning on three levels: objective, subjective, and spiritual. Meditation on such symbols may result in significant insights depending on the readiness of the meditator. Some of the most startling samples may be found in Tantra. For example, the well known tantrik symbol of male and female deities in copulation may be interpreted as a physical event (which is a basis of numerous commercial books on "yoga of sex"), or an interplay of polar energies both in microcosm and macrocosm, or else the union of wisdom (void) and compassion (or 'means') leading to the realization of the void-nature of all things. 2. Cosmos has a built-in, intricate system of analogies and correspondences, so the correct way of studying those as manifested on lower planes may reveal a lot about the spirit. For example, cosmically, all spiritual planes (the higher mental, and higher) are nothing else than cosmic ethereal planes corresponding to familiar prana etc., and this idea may reveal something even about 'undifferentiated consciousness.' 3. The path to adeptship is a long enterprise spanning over many incarnations, and some time on the path may be saved by studying occult teachings and trying to correlate them (which is different from conceptualizing them) long before we are able to really understand the full meaning of those teachings. But of course for such a study only reliable texts written by adepts (directly or indirectly) are suitable; all other material is absolutely useless. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 19 00:07:50 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:07:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Consciousness In-Reply-To: <960818190333_262725436@emout12.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960818190333_262725436@emout12.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes > >A person often says, "I ~have~ a headache." Easy enough to say. However, in >the private agony-space before one puts it into words, the secret, intimate, >personal experience is probably this: "I ~am~ a headache." I have never noticed such a thing. A headache, toothache, full tummy, whatever, is an experience that send me a message of either "like" or "dislike" or "not sure". It is what it is, and I get the message. Nothing "undifferentiated" there at all. > A little bit of >Undifferentiated Consciousness's ~I AM~ has been "differentiated" by >involvement with the material and has become at least temporarily "deluded." No wonder God is such a mess! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 18 23:26:31 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:26:31 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Cos: Beatles & Rules In-Reply-To: <960818121508_181753918@emout19.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960818121508_181753918@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >And you're right. It takes a lot to embarrass me. (Though if someone in the >TS ever gets their hands on the porno films I made 25 years ago...) :-) > >Chuck the Heretic Not the one with the *DUCK* ? .... Alan :-| --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 18 23:27:11 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:27:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Beatles and Rules In-Reply-To: <960818121516_181753980@emout15.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960818121516_181753980@emout15.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Ann, >Why do you think I have a couple of black belts? > >Chuck the Heretic Bondage freak ? Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 18 23:43:02 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:43:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Nucleus of Elitism In-Reply-To: <960818182516_74024.3352_BHT152-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960818182516_74024.3352_BHT152-1@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >These are ideas that are brewing just below the surface for me. Has anyone ever >thought anything like this? That the appeal of the Masters is in some way, the >appeal of (God forbid) a sports star who seems larger than life, and that I can >share in his or her glory by collecting trading cards the way some collect >tidbits of thesophical history? I think there is a lot of truth in this, though not in the literal "card carrying" sense. The thing to collect is dedication the THEIR work plus OBEDIENCE to THEIR chosen representatives ... > >The real danger which is again and again stated that the first thing must be the >destruction of the childish, ego centered selfish desires of the lower bodies. Yes: it's the "destruction" idea which reminds me all too much of Roman Catholicasceticism carried to extremes. Humans are mutiple-layer beings, so why canot the child in us be allowed to play at the same time as the sage in us gets on with sage-ing? >This is a recurrent theme in texts like the VOS. The danger, for me, I am >afraid, is that someone like Krishnamurti may come along and say these elitist >notions about the "path" are all bosh and fliim flam. This para is not clear - are you saying you think the elitest notions should be retained, and are not BS etc? Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 18 01:06:04 1996 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 02:06:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: World Parliament of Religions--Again, Again In-Reply-To: <960817192118_387661945@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960817192118_387661945@emout17.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Okay, let's see if it works now. >Now remember, this was just something I threw together three years ago for >the fun of it so don't expect great writing. I loved every word, every typo, every "=" sign - in fact I really and truly (honest) *enjoyed* it. Alan >REFLECTIONS ON THE WORLD PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS >By >Charles W. Cosimano --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 19 01:16:24 1996 Date: 18 Aug 96 21:16:24 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: RE: WPR - Again, again Message-Id: <960819011623_72723.2375_FHP14-2@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >Actually it was fun once everyone realized that they were there to party and >not worry about the sort of nonsense the organizers had in mind. Glad I never intended to attend anything official. I spent my time between the exhibition area and carefully selected workshops and lectures. My favorites were John Mack on alien abduction and going out to dinner at Berghoff's. At 5pm, I was out of there, catching the train and going home. But I heard that some people slept four to a room to save on the hotel bill. - Ann E. Bermingham From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 18 18:25:16 1996 Date: 18 Aug 96 14:25:16 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Nucleus of Elitism Message-Id: <960818182516_74024.3352_BHT152-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >Some one has pointed about rather strongly, that the First Objective states a >NUCLEUS of universal brotherhood. Thus an elitism may be inferred that many are >called, but few are chosen seem to apply. Off your original topic, Keith, but worth following up I think. This aspect of 1st Object has bothered me for some time, and it has also transferred itself to the TI objectives. The better approach, IMHO, would have been to form *nuclei* rather than a single nucleus, in either version. Thus there could be any number of (say) TI "nuclear" families all part of the larger whole, and all interconnected through TI (or TSA, or whatever). Then Lodges, branches, meetings, whatever they are called or however constructed, would be independent in truth, and not only in name ... This could be a topic for TI-L - anyone care to follow up there? (cc. to same). Keith: I am very concerned about my status as a card carrying theosophist, in the sense that the big distintiction of theosophy from other types of "ancient wisdom" including say shamanism, and perhaps the original attraction back in the late 19th century to many was a type of spiritual Darwinism, not unlike social Darwinism in some ways if take to it conclusion of an elite core taking control of world governments and scientific and social machinery for the benefit of mankind and the planet, because the Neanderthal fundamentalists want to stagnate and destroy the planet and exploit women, children and natural resources which was in large part true during the 19th century perhaps. Thus Theosophy seems to imply that there are spiritual Masters that are evolved because of their sacrifices of their "animal natures" to the evolutionary goal and thus are the way showers for a nucleus of humanity who can become more evolved and enter politics sometimes obviously as in the case of Annie Bessant in India and perhaps more covertly by Blavatsky as a supposed spy. The whole idea is not presented directly in any one place. The original hooks to read the SD include a lot of the same ideas that we are all divine etc. and can uncover and use it in some way. In America, we feel a natural tendency toward non-elitism and hate the idea of royalty or anyone that is too "stuck-up" These prejudices are not shared and other countries and cultures still cling to the idea of the elite as a necessary step to keep the masses on the right track. Is whole earth ecology an excuse for a communist type control and planning? These are ideas that are brewing just below the surface for me. Has anyone ever thought anything like this? That the appeal of the Masters is in some way, the appeal of (God forbid) a sports star who seems larger than life, and that I can share in his or her glory by collecting trading cards the way some collect tidbits of thesophical history? The real danger which is again and again stated that the first thing must be the destruction of the childish, ego centered selfish desires of the lower bodies. This is a recurrent theme in texts like the VOS. The danger, for me, I am afraid, is that someone like Krishnamurti may come along and say these elitist notions about the "path" are all bosh and fliim flam. Namaste Keith Price From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 18 23:18:15 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:18:15 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Nucleus of Elitism In-Reply-To: <960818182516_74024.3352_BHT152-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960818182516_74024.3352_BHT152-1@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >This aspect of 1st Object has bothered me for some time, and it has also >transferred itself to the TI objectives. The better approach, IMHO, >would have been to form *nuclei* rather than a single nucleus, in either >version. Thus there could be any number of (say) TI "nuclear" families >all part of the larger whole, and all interconnected through TI (or TSA, >or whatever). Through TI, as far as possible - just in case some of the nuclear families began studying the "wrong" things ... > >Then Lodges, branches, meetings, whatever they are called or however >constructed, would be independent in truth, and not only in name ... So how about TI members starting some branches, meetings, whatever? So long as the TI approach of consensus is used, with co-ordinators and facilitators, then the "old" hierarchical structure could not gain a toehold. Those attending need not necessarily be TI members, and members of other theosophy groups and societies might wish to be invited. Most TI members are also members of the "mainstream" Theosophy setups in any case. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 19 05:04:59 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:04:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960819010459_388511195@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Magic, Enochian Style Jerry, Actually, I do care as much as you do, my approach is just a bit different. There are a number of magicians besides us in the TS (Michael Bertieaux being the most widely known) and most of the people in the Chicago magick scene have made the trek to Olcott at least once. I see the matter as largely a generational one, the older members being scared fartless of the whole thing and the younger ones not being bothered by it. As the older ones die out, the fear of it will pass with them. By the way, has anyone called you an "Agent of the Anti-Christ" yet? That one is still my personal favorite. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 19 05:06:15 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:06:15 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960819010615_388511869@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cos: Beatles & Rules Alan, Damn it! I thought no one ever saw that one! Chuck the embarrassed Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 19 05:07:25 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:07:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960819010724_388512521@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Beatles and Rules Alan, I think we were discussing fisticuffs, not leather cuffs. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 19 05:10:56 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:10:56 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960819011055_388514427@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: WPR - Again, again Ann, Gerda and I suffered through most of the official stuff at the beginning and after that was over it got to be fun. I took the morning train down and the late train home, except for one night that was my girl-friend's birthday, when I played hookey and we went to a cubs game and then she spent the night, which meant I didn't get a lot of sleep. A situation I made up for the next afternoon during John Algeo's talk. I snored. Chuck the Heretic From RIhle@aol.com Mon Aug 19 06:20:19 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 02:20:19 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960819022019_263001025@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Consciousness Richard Ihle writes> >>A person often says, "I ~have~ a headache." Easy enough to say. However, >>in the private agony-space before one puts it into words, the secret, intimate, >>personal experience is probably this: "I ~am~ a headache." Alan writes> >I have never noticed such a thing. A headache, toothache, full tummy, >whatever, is an experience that send me a message of either "like" or >"dislike" or "not sure". It is what it is, and I get the message. >Nothing "undifferentiated" there at all. RI> Let me try to clarify. (All problems in communication are undoubtedly mine, since I not sure that I have ~ever~ been able to make a single person understand me on these subjects.) First and most importantly, the experiences you cite above would all be examples of ~differentiated~ types of consciousness, not undifferentiated. What you are conscious of ~simply~ seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, or hearing would be regarded as ego-formations temporarily coming into and then probably soon going out of existence at the Second, or Physical, Level. If whatever it is progresses into a conscious feeling/emotion of like/dislike, it might be said that an ego-formation has come into being at the Third, or Desire-Feeling, Level. An ego-formation can arise, pass away, and then arise again in a split second, so sometimes it seems like many are "on-stage" (commanding the attention) at the same time; however, this is probably an illusion. As mentioned previously, the reason most people seldom regard the ego-formations at the lower levels as any kind of even "temporary identities," is because just a modest degree of Self-awareness--or Undifferentiated-Consciousness-Awareness--(as "captured" by what HPB might be inclined to call the "Spiritual component of the human soul"--i.e., Buddhi-manas consciousness) makes it possible to maintain a "Once-Removed-Vantage" or Witness during the experience. It then becomes, for example, "I ~have~ the physical sensation," rather than "I ~am~ the physical sensation." Or, "I ~have~ a dislike for the physical sensation, rather than "I ~am~ a dislike for the physical sensation." Fortunately, distinctions like the foregoing are comparatively unimportant at the lower levels. --Let me take that back: they probably ~were~ comparatively unimportant before the advent of modern visual and auditory electronics. Now, it is a common experience to be sitting in a movie, for example, which is so powerful that it can "command your conscious attention" the whole while, but then you are surprised that two hours have gone by and "you hadn't really been there"--i.e., that you had lost complete awareness of yourself--your ~Self~ as its Buddhi-manas ~upadhi~, so to speak. Missing Witness or "Silent Watcher," so to speak. So anyway, maybe in the good old days, perhaps the big challenge was for people of the Fourth- or Fifth-Degree of Self-awareness to maintain enough of the Once-Removed-Vantage not to let themselves be deluded that they ~were~ their Fourth- and Fifth-Level (Desire-Mental and Mental) ideas and cognative operations (rather than that another "Witnessing I" was simply ~having~ these ideas etc.). Now, perhaps the Apocalypse is really at hand because soul-snatchers of unprecedented power can nab even some of the best of us at the lower levels as well. Indeed, allowing for the moment the possibility that reincarnation may be true, I have long suspected that mere "aggregates of attachment" (~skandhas~) might not be enough to bring the old Atma-Buddhi-manas package back for another try: it seems reasonable that at least some Self-awareness must remain in association with these "desire-seeds." --Yes, let me take it back: if modern life becomes primarily like sitting in one highly entertaining, attention-grabbing, but ~Self-erasing~ movie after another, who is to say that every human soul will leave this world "practiced enough" in consciousness of itself to "hold the seeds together" and return? Alan, I swear . . . the reason that no one can understand me ~has~ to be because I always start talking about aardvarks and then inevitably end up with Zoroaster. . . . ~Undifferentiated Writing~: I'll cover this subject next time. . . . Best wishes and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 19 11:51:48 1996 Date: 19 Aug 96 07:51:48 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Consciousness/Gurdjieff Message-Id: <960819115147_72724.413_FHP47-1@CompuServe.COM> For those not familiar with it, I would like to contribute a brief explanation of Gurdjieff's view on consciousness. The entire thrust of the practical Gurdjieff teaching is for people to work on themselves so that they exist in each moment in what he calls the third state of consciousness, rather than the second state of consciousness which most of us live in most of the time. Gurdjieff sees this second state of consciousness as a kind of waking sleep. Here are the 4 Gurdjieffian states of human consciousness in ascending order of being more conscious. 1) Consciousness state #1: Sleep/dream state i.e. like our state in bed at night 2)Consciousness state #2: "Waking consciousness" or "waking sleep" or "relative consciousness" . It's all the same to Gurdjieff and just the hypnosis of life in which most of us live most of the time, but don't know it. We walk around in a kind of sleep/dream with our attention always taken by identifications. 3)Consciousness state #3: "Self-consciousness" or "self-awareness" or "self-remembering". This is the Gurdjieff work, that is to make effort to be in this state in each moment. It is a degree of human consciousness which most humans are unaware of at all. It requires dividing the attention, or if you like, expanding the attention to include the experience of oneself in the attention all the time. 4) Consciousness state #4: Objective consciousness. This is the supreme state of human consciousness in which we can know things as they are. It is the "real world" of Gurdjieff, and the world of mystical experience. It is the stuff about which our theosophical libraries are full of inadequate description. Gurdjieff says it's great fun to read about consciousness state #4 and to imagine our existence in this supreme state. But don't fool yourself. You cannot stay in it for more than a flash, unless you already exist more or less permanently in consciousness state #3. Then you can go on. So the work is to try as best we can to exist in consciousness state #3. The tool that Gurdjieff says we have for existing in consciousness state #3 is "ATTENTION". It is, in fact, our only tool. The work is to include ourself in our ATTENTION in every moment and at the same time include in our ATTENTION whatever else we are attentive to. This is likened to "mindfulness" practices in certain forms of buddhism, and "watchfulness" the secret code word in the new testatment about which Jesus spoke. It is what the monks practice on Mt. Athos as esoteric Christianity. If I read Richard Ihle correctly, this is what he is talking about in his recent posting as follows: "As mentioned previously, the reason most people seldom regard the ego-formations at the lower levels as any kind of even "temporary identities," is because just a modest degree of Self-awareness--or Undifferentiated-Consciousness-Awareness--(as "captured" by what HPB might be inclined to call the "Spiritual component of the human soul"--i.e., Buddhi-manas consciousness) makes it possible to maintain a "Once-Removed-Vantage" or Witness during the experience. It then becomes, for example, "I ~have~ the physical sensation," rather than "I ~am~ the physical sensation." Or, "I ~have~ a dislike for the physical sensation, rather than "I ~am~ a dislike for the physical sensation." Fortunately, distinctions like the foregoing are comparatively unimportant at the lower levels. --Let me take that back: they probably ~were~ comparatively unimportant before the advent of modern visual and auditory electronics. Now, it is a common experience to be sitting in a movie, for example, which is so powerful that it can "command your conscious attention" the whole while, but then you are surprised that two hours have gone by and "you hadn't really been there"--i.e., that you had lost complete awareness of yourself--your ~Self~ as its Buddhi-manas ~upadhi~, so to speak. Missing Witness or "Silent Watcher," so to speak. So anyway, maybe in the good old days, perhaps the big challenge was for people of the Fourth- or Fifth-Degree of Self-awareness to maintain enough of the Once-Removed-Vantage not to let themselves be deluded that they ~were~ their Fourth- and Fifth-Level (Desire-Mental and Mental) ideas and cognative operations (rather than that another "Witnessing I" was simply ~having~ these ideas etc.). Now, perhaps the Apocalypse is really at hand because soul-snatchers of unprecedented power can nab even some of the best of us at the lower levels as well. Indeed, allowing for the moment the possibility that reincarnation may be true, I have long suspected that mere "aggregates of attachment" (~skandhas~) might not be enough to bring the old Atma-Buddhi-manas package back for another try: it seems reasonable that at least some Self-awareness must remain in association with these "desire-seeds." --Yes, let me take it back: if modern life becomes primarily like sitting in one highly entertaining, attention-grabbing, but ~Self-erasing~ movie after another, who is to say that every human soul will leave this world " " It is all summed up in Gurdjieff's famous aphorism: "Remember yourself, always and everywhere." Sy From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 19 12:11:50 1996 Date: 19 Aug 96 08:11:50 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: WPR - Again, Again Message-Id: <960819121150_72723.2375_FHP46-1@CompuServe.COM> Cos: >Gerda and I suffered through most of the official stuff at the beginning and >after that was over it got to be fun. I took the morning train down and the >late train home. . . A situation I made up for the next >afternoon during John Algeo's talk. I snored. I take it you were riding the Northwestern home, while I was hopping onto the CTA. Algeo at the WPR? That shows you how aware I was of what was going on. I basically approached the whole thing from what I liked and what fit my agenda. Most of my choices were based on a search for material for writing - the endless search. BTW, Chuck and others, if I haven't responded to your posts recently, it may be because I was supposed to be receiving the digest. Unfortunately, my Compuserve service gets lazy with lengthy posts and would send me only half the digest. I've gone back to regular post, so I should be able to read everything now. -Ann E. Bermingham From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Mon Aug 19 18:04:53 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:04:53 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608191804.AA07035@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Re: Manual for Revolution >Jerry, >It sounds like the Manual nonsense was the sort of idiocy that >John Chancellor was noted for in 1968. Our fundamentalist >friends love to pick up on that sort of thing and I must >confess it would have been more fun if HPB had written such a >book. Just think how we could scare the pants off of the >neighbors in Wheaton. > >Chuck the Heretic JHE If the neighbors had followed the Adyar Theosophical literature written during the twenties through the forties, they would have had plenty to be scared about without resorting to idiotic stories about revolutionary manuals. Perhaps it is just more fun to be scared about things that aren't true, then to be genuinely upset about things that are. Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 19 21:35:44 1996 Date: 19 Aug 96 17:35:44 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Reincarnation: HPB & Jung Message-Id: <960819213543_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> >I would be interested in a citation here if you can find it, Jerry. I >sold my part set of his collected works some years ago in order to eat. Alan, I wrote an essay about reincarnation for my Enochian Journal awhile back. The essay contains some neat models of Jung's psyche, but since this has to be in ASCII, they are not included here. Still, you can get the idea. The main quote you are asking about is is Vol 17 of his Collected Works. ************************* Reincarnation. Occultism and magic teach that we all reincarnate, or periodically take on new physical births on this Earth. But exactly what does this mean? First of all, the occult doctrine does not suggest that we slough off this physical body like an overcoat, and simply don a new one while "forgetting" our last life. This is a naive exoteric view that can be found in many texts, including the Bhagavad-Gita. Lets take a closer look. Many people think that it is the personality that reincarnates. H.P. Blavatsky assures us that it is not: "What is the false personality? It is that bundle of desires, aspirations, affection and hatred, in short of action, manifested by a human being on this earth during one incarnation and under the form of one personality. Certainly it is not this (which is in fact, for us, the deluded, material, and materially thinking lot, Mr. So and So, or Mrs. Someboddy else) that remains immortal, or is ever reborn. "All that bundle of Egotism, that apparent and evanescent "I," disappears after death ...Nothing remains of that "bundle" to go to the next incarnation, except the seed for future Karma ..." (H.P. Blavatsky, Theories about Reincarnation and Spirits) OK, the personality does not reincarnate. So then what does? In the same article, she says: "There are re-births, or periodical reincarnations for the immortal Ego ("Ego" during the cycle of rebirths, and non-Ego, in Nirvana or Moksha when it becomes impersonal and absolute); for that Ego is the root of every new incarnation." HPB thus distinguishes between ego and Ego, which she also calls personality versus the individuality, the latter being somewhat higher and more lasting than the former. In other words, the Ego expresses itself as an individual ego during any one of a series of incarnations. Her Ego is thus equivalent to the occult idea of the oversoul. We see then that not only do we take on a new physical body with each incarnation, but also a new ego or personality - albeit one that is based on the karma of the past. The teaching that we are different while remaining much the same during each incarnation is familiar in the East. In Eastern esotericism, especially Buddhism, the teaching is that each life is like a wave rising up from the surface of the ocean. As one wave rises and falls, shaped and buffeted by karmic winds, it is soon replaced by another. Each wave is different, yet most of the water is the same. Now lets look at what Jungian psychology has to say on the subject of reincarnation. Jung taught that the ego has access to both conscious and unconscious contents as shown in the figure below. The line separating consciousness from the unconscious is fluid and will shift as we go through life. Jung taught that the unconscious can be divided into a personal unconscious, unique to each individual, and a collective unconscious that is shared by everyone. This is shown graphically below.
The personal unconscious is that part of the unconscious that contains contents personal to an individual that were forgotten, repressed, subliminally perceived, thought, or felt. Most of these contents can be restored to consciousness (consciousness can only hold a few things at once). (Jacobi, J., 1973, The psychology of C. G. Jung, New Haven: Yale University Press, P 8) The collective unconscious is that part of the unconscious that does not contain contents relating to an individual ego, but rather those that result from "the inherited possibility of psychical functioning in general, namely from the inherited brain structure." (Jacobi, p 9) There is a connection between the psyche and biology because the psyche, as it is experienced by us, is inseparable from the physical body, but this does not imply a biological dependency. On the contrary, the psyche does not seem to be limited to space and time (Jacobi, footnote 5, pp 8-9) The collective unconscious constitutes the foundation of every individual psyche (Jacobi, p 9). The figure below shows this structure geometrically:
Now that we have the structure, lets see what Jung says. "Our personality develops in the course of our life from germs that are hard or impossible to discern, and it is only our deeds that reveal who we are ... At first we do not know what deeds or misdeeds, what destiny, what good and evil we have in us, and only the autumn can show what the spring has engendered, only in the evening will it be seen what the morning began" (Jung, C.G. & Hull, R.F.C. (Trans.) 1991, The development of the personality: Papers on child psychology, education, and related subjects, Bollingen Series XX, vol. 17, Princeton University Press, p 172). Jung's germs sounds a lot like karma. Now lets look at the ego: "The ego, the subject of consciousness, comes into existence as a complex quantity which is constituted partly by the inherited disposition (character constituents) and partly by unconsciously acquired impressions and their attendant phenomena. The psyche itself, in relation to consciousness, is pre-existent, and transcendent" (Jung, p 91). Jung says here that the psyche exists before the birth of the ego and after its death. This sounds a lot like HPB's Ego. Jung also says that most of the conscious develops during the period from birth to "psychic puberty," which is to say, about twenty-five years for a man, and about twenty years for a woman. "This process of the conscious rising up from the unconscious is like an island newly risen from the sea" (Jung, p 52). Here Jung uses the Eastern metaphor of the waves upon the sea. He warns us about this: "By virtue of its indefinite extension the unconscious might be compared to the sea, while consciousness is like an island rising out of its midst. This comparison, however, must not be pushed too far; for the relation of conscious to unconscious ... is not in any sense a stable relationship, but a ceaseless welling-up, a constant shifting of content; for, like the conscious, the unconscious is never at rest, never stagnant. It lives and works in a state of perpetual interactions with the conscious." (Jung, p 51). He also points out that according to a law of evolution, our species repeats itself in the embryonic development of the individual. Thus man in his embryonic life passes through the anatomical forms of primeval times (Jung, p 53). Here Jung argues for an ancient occult teaching; every foetus goes through a miniture version of the entire evolution of our physical body. "The child has a special psychology. Just as its body during the embryonic period is part of the mother's body, so its mind is for many years part of the parents' mental atmosphere" (Jung, p 74). This passage suggests that a form of telepathy exists between parents and their children. Jung also notes that the mind of the neonate is not blank. He says that the child's psyche prior to the stage of ego-consciousness is not devoid of contents. Soon after speech has developed, consciousness is present and is exercising checks on the previous collective contents (Jung, p 44). At three and four years of age, the dwindling collective psyche dreamily reiterates the contents of the collective soul of mankind. These unchildlike premonitions, when discovered later in life, form the basis of the belief in reincarnation (Jung, p 45). Jung says here that many of our "rememberings" of past activities are actually images from the collective unconscious to which we all have access. How does one go about differentiating between such visions and true memory of past lives? He does not say. "Primitive peoples often hold the belief that the soul of the child is the incarnation of an ancestral spirit, for which reason it is dangerous to punish children, lest the ancestral spirit be provoked." This belief is a more concrete formulation of the idea of the individual psyche rising up from within a collective psyche (Jung, p 45). The figure below graphically shows this idea of the individual rising up from the collective. What Jung calls "central energy" we would call pure consciousness, which is to say consciousness without any attributes or characteristics assigned to it. This is the Seer of Eastern yoga or cit. Finally, Jung says, "The unconscious psyche of the child is truly limitless in extent and of incalculable age" (Jung, p 45). Although Jung never outwardly admitted to reincarnation as a fact, his teachings strongly suggests the likelihood. But not in the exoteric sense of the ego simply switching to a new body and "forgetting" the past life. Jungian psychology suggests the possibility of reincarnation in the esoteric sense that we have described above the psyche or Ego giving birth to a whole new ego and body with each incarnation. Like a wave rising up from the sea, the psyche pushes up a new individual ego, with a new personal unconscious, from the depths of the collective unconscious. Jung's collective unconscious, like the Buddhist laya-vij na, is the storehouse of all of our past experiences on this Earth. A quick look at quantum field theory shows us a striking parallel to the wave and sea analogy. In the Hamilton-Jacobi theory, a collection of wavelets in a small region of space has the appearance of a material particle. According to this theory, subatomic particles are not solid building-blocks of matter, but are groups of energy wavelets. "This group of wavelets constantly folds in and out of the general wave motion of the background much like a large wave of water is produced by the overall motion of the ocean" (F. David Peat, Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind, 1987, p 169). By means of a cyclic process of enfolding and unfolding, these wavelets take on the properties of particles with deterministic trajectories through space. This theory clearly suggests that all material objects are just forms of energy (which is what Einstein said with E=mc2) which rise up from a common background for a time, and then return. ********************* end of essay From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Aug 19 22:17:13 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:17:13 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608192324.TAA22174@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to: Kweith, Re: elitism > The danger, for me, I am >afraid, is that someone like Krishnamurti may come along and say these elitist >notions about the "path" are all bosh and fliim flam. Keith, My concept of the Masters is not that they are our leaders, but rather that they are our role models. The promise of Theosophy, or at least one of them, to me is that some day, in one of my future incarnations, I will be able to function as the Masters function. If someone wants to call that flim flam, well, they're free to do so. Those happen to be my beliefs, so I really don't care who else says something different that doesn't make any sense to me. TI is an experiment in trying to rule by concensus, and that's fine with me. I'd rather work that way. Also, as I said in my last TI message, to me the word "nucleus" also smacks of elitism, and I prefer Martin's concept "network". I've been part of an elite for all of my life. It doesn't mean anything except that everyone who belongs to this elite feels superior. I'm really tired of it. It works like a box around what I am, & confines me. I can only talk to my equals or superiors, but not to my underlings. Superior to what, underling to what, I ask you. I'd rather be part of an open network, & let the others, like the ES, be an elite. Liesel From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 19 23:38:32 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:38:32 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960819193831_460384575@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: WPR - Again, Again Ann, Actually, it was the Milwaukee Road. But except for John Algeo and Jay Williams I basically avoided the theosophical stuff because I already knew what they were going to say and spent most of my time hanging out with the pagans. One weird thing about the Parliament, which may explain why the ts still makes such a big thing about it, is that the folks there tended to have a lot more respect and love for the Theosophical Society than we members did. Maybe it has something to do with the old, Baptist ditty: "To live above with the saints I love, Oh, that will be glory. But to live below with the saints I know, Well, that's another story." Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 19 23:39:13 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:39:13 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960819193911_460385169@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Manual for Revolution Jerry, If the neighbors had gotten ahold of *that* literature we would not be talking about Olcott because it would have been burned down in 1941. On the other hand, the thought of John Algeo being tarred and feathered... Serves him right for inflicting Shirley Temple and talking pigs on us. Chuck the Heretic From eldon@theosophy.com Tue Aug 20 06:51:35 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:51:35 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960820065135.006c4c84@imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: irc Chuck: >Well, I dropped in about 11 my time, which is 9 pacific, as Eldon was so kind >as to remind me and no one was there, so the party must not have lasted too >long. >Pity. >We'll have to try again some time. It started around 8:30 AM PDT (10:30 AM your time) and I think it should have still been going 30 minutes later. Are you sure you dropped in? Try again this Sunday, perhaps a few minutes earlier... -- Eldon From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 19 23:16:54 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 00:16:54 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <+A0DMBAmXPGyEwW5@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Reincarnation: HPB & Jung In-Reply-To: <960819213543_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960819213543_76400.1474_HHL29-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >>I would be interested in a citation here if you can find it, Jerry. I >>sold my part set of his collected works some years ago in order to eat. > >Alan, I wrote an essay about reincarnation for my Enochian Journal >awhile back. The essay contains some neat models of Jung's >psyche, but since this has to be in ASCII, they are not included here. >Still, you can get the idea. The main quote you are asking about is >is Vol 17 of his Collected Works. Many thanks for the article. The lack of diags doesn't matter, as I am more than familiar with Jungian basics - I wish I still had my copy of the Jacobi book you mention: I lent it to someone years ago, and guess what ... Thanks again! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 19 22:14:28 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:14:28 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Consciousness In-Reply-To: <960819022019_263001025@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960819022019_263001025@emout17.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Now, it is a common experience to be sitting in a movie, for >example, which is so powerful that it can "command your conscious attention" >the whole while, but then you are surprised that two hours have gone by and >"you hadn't really been there"--i.e., that you had lost complete awareness of >yourself--your ~Self~ as its Buddhi-manas ~upadhi~, so to speak. Missing >Witness or "Silent Watcher," so to speak. I think this may be true for many people, but also that many on this list would *no longer* find this example true. For instance, when my attention is "captured" - say by the movie in your example, I cannot avoid *knowing* that my attention is captured, though I recognise that this may not be the case for everyone. In everyday life, such a level of attention can even be a problem, as things are seen and noticed which others would rather one didn't see and notice - my advice: keep stumm. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From pmmkien@main.com Tue Aug 20 02:53:57 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:53:57 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608200243.VAA09595@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Consciousness Sy Ginsburg - I appreciate your summary of the Gurjieff view of consciousness. You go on to write, >Gurdjieff says we have for existing in consciousness state #3 is >"ATTENTION". It is, in fact, our only tool. The work is to include ourself in >our ATTENTION in every moment and at the same time include in our ATTENTION >whatever else we are attentive to. > I find this significant - This "Attention" - has the character of "intentionality" - in the sense that "Attention" is impossible without an act of intention...Would you say that "intentionality" is a pre-requisite to consciousness? Or does consciousness exist independently of "intention" ? Paul K. From jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Tue Aug 20 02:02:52 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:02:52 -0600 (MDT) From: JRC Subject: Re: nucleus of elitism In-Reply-To: <199608192307.TAA21107@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi gang ... Been rather a tad busy of late, but thought I'd weigh in on the "Nucleus" question with maybe a slightly different point of view. I actually think the word "nucleus" is appropriate, and should *not* be changed, for the same reason I believed the word "brotherhood" *needed* to be changed: Precision of expression. While I am a (sometimes probably overly) vocal critic of the elitist attitudes that run through the TS like putrid rivers through fresh meadows, and see those attitudes even when they are deeply buried, it has never occured to me to think the word "nucleus" elitist - because *the entire First Object must be taken as a whole*. It contains a very direct, declarative statement ("To form the nucleus of the Universal Family of Humanity ...."), and a modifying clause that further articulates the idea ("...without regard to etc..."). In my view, there is nothing *absolute* about the statement ... i.e., we are not forming the nucleus of the "one true world religion" (though some a few people seem to act like that's how it reads (-:) - we are, in essence, engaged in a *very* specific act of, well, magic, on behalf of those who generated the original current. Dig this ... It seems that if one looks throughout history, one can believe that numerous different social, political, religious, scientific, artistic, and other movements found their originating source in what might be called the "spiritual kingdom". There has also been numerous traditions that have, to varying degrees (and with widely different vocabularies) claimed contact with or connection to an inner order of wisdom. While many of these did release teaching of some sort to the specific people that were drawn to participate, they all seem to have had a larger project *that the teaching was given to further*. None of these schools seemed interested solely in providing a nice little school for people to pursue their own personal growth - ultimately an inherently *selfish* act - but rather, with introducing some current, some set of ideas, with launching some impulse into humanity *as a whole* in some specific realm of human endeavor, and giving teaching to the *agents within the human kingdom* that agreed to play a part in the *particular piece of work*. That is, I believe the spiritual kingdom to be *extremely* goal/project-oriented ... in fact, in the case of the TS, the Adepts almost continuously resisted attempts to turn the thing into nothing but a school of occultism (i.e., the focus collapsing into the "teaching" instead of the *purpose* for which it was delivered) - finally (with great reservations) permitting HPB to begin her own small circle, but even at that *insisting* that membership in the TS, and committment to the larger ideals of the Society was a *requirement*. More succinctly, the goal was *not* to wind up with a tiny group of people that took the opportunity of contact with the inner kingdom to further their own growth, but rather to significantly affect civilization as a whole by germinating the seed of a specific idea into it. The creation of the TS was *an act of magic, designed by beings working at a very large scale, extremely well-defined and focussed in intention (as all good magic is), with the creation of a particular pattern of relationships ("Universal Family") as the goal of the magic, human civilization as the medium and field of manifestation, *and the TS membership as the manifesting agent of the act**. Now the success of magic depends upon a number of things, but high on the list is the degree to which the energy and form are harmonious, and the precision with which form is held. Because in this case language was used, to *maintain* the form language must adjust to intention (hence, if the word "brotherhood" begins to mean precisely the opposite of what it did 100 years ago, it must be adjusted for the form to remain precise). "Nucleus", however, is still (IMO) the perfect word. The *way* "civilizational magic" has always worked is by the formulation of evolutionary ideation at the spiritual levels, the crystallization of it into denser and denser form, until finally some *point of access* into the densest layers of day to day life is found - a point of access through which the *energy* of the ideation may move as electricity through our race. And this is why (again, IMO) "nucleus" is the correct word - better than "network" or the others I've heard over the years. If you want power, electricity, in your house, you do not lay an entire power grid over the house and attempt to suck the electricity in by osmosis, you find a single point in the house that will be the connection to the grid ... the point of access into the house ... put a circuit breaker or fuse at the juncture, and wire the rest of the house from that source. Nuclei are being (IMO) created *all over the place* - in is simply the standard operating procedure. For the inner kingdom to manifest *anything* they need to find some focal point of entry .. but its easy to see the formation of a "nucleus" of new ideas in the political realm, in healing and other scientific fields, in artistic circles, etc., etc. With the TS I believe the inner kingdom simply got a bit more overt about what it was doing and simply stated it outright: It intended to form a nucleus for a specific idea, and desired the Society to function as both the point of access and the "wiring" through the human house through which a specific energy could move. It never occurred to me this was "elitist", because it never occured to me that it was anything other than one of hundreds of "nuclei" being formed at any given time - and in fact I believe many of them are being formed within the context of a *much* larger picture (for instance, the sudden explosion of online computing certainly did come from what could be called a "nucleus", is expanding quickly all over the world, and is *extremely* complimentary with the idea of "Universal Family" ..). I believe that we who call ourselves "Theosophists" are the current players in a multigenerational project, generated by the spiritual kingdom, and meant to unfold in harmony with numerous other projects - as a string in a woven blanket. That our "project" is by no means special or elevated above any others (and may well be a rather minor player) ... but that the precision with we introduce the ideal *we* have taken responsibility for may have affects on many *other* projects of which we know nothing ... that forming the "nucleus" of a specific ideal by no means means that we are elevated above anyone else, nor that our ideal is anything other than a small piece of a huge picture, but rather, is a simple and precise statement of what we have voluntarily chosen to *do* and the means by which we will do it. In fact, I believe what is really *wrong* with the TS is that it has not *taken responsibility* for the formation of that nucleus ... but has instead become little more than a roomful of people fighting over table scraps tossed by the "Masters", mistaking them for the actual meal, and completely forgetting the reason they were tossed at us in the first place. Giggles, -JRC From ozren.skondric@kiss.uni-lj.si Fri Aug 20 03:34:47 1993 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 05:34:47 +0200 From: Ozren Skondric Message-Id: <2C744657.2706@kiss.uni-lj.si> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: irc References: <2.2.32.19960820065135.006c4c84@imagiware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > Chuck: > > >Well, I dropped in about 11 my time, which is 9 pacific, as Eldon was so kind > >as to remind me and no one was there, so the party must not have lasted too > >long. > >Pity. > >We'll have to try again some time. > > It started around 8:30 AM PDT (10:30 AM your time) and I think it should > have still been going 30 minutes later. Are you sure you dropped in? > > Try again this Sunday, perhaps a few minutes earlier... > > -- Eldon Could somebody help me convert this to Central European Time? Thank you. Ozren From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 19 13:09:05 1996 Date: 19 Aug 96 09:09:05 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Nucleus of Elitism Message-Id: <960819130904_72723.2375_FHP23-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >In America, we feel a natural tendency toward non-elitism and hate the idea of >royalty or anyone that is too "stuck-up" These prejudices are not shared and >other countries and cultures still cling to the idea of the elite as a necessary >step to keep the masses on the right track. The Amer. Federation of Astrologers cast the natal chart of the USA at the time the Declaration of Independence was born. (July 4, 1776, Philadelphia, PA at 2:13 am, standard time) Sun in Cancer, Gemini rising sign. Moon in Aquarius close to an Aquarian Midheaven. The Moon in Aquarius indicates a capacity to sympathize with the needs of humanity. Being friendly to all, in an impersonal way. This nation seeks freedom of expression and demands freedom in its domestic situation. Unusual family/population relationships are seen in its melting pot of many nationalities and intermarriage of them. While these astrological energies that influenced the USA to be non-elitist, other countries might have very different charts, indicating their system move along different lines in the cosmic drama. >Is whole earth ecology an excuse for a communist type control and planning? How about an excuse for survival? >These are ideas that are brewing just below the surface for me. Has anyone ever >thought anything like this? That the appeal of the Masters is in some way, the >appeal of (God forbid) a sports star who seems larger than life, and that I can >share in his or her glory by collecting trading cards the way some collect >tidbits of thesophical history? I think you have a very good point here. But it's easy for people to want to group together and feel "special". Even though it's a false specialness that is actually blocking out the connection to one's Higher Self, which is really the only non-special specialness there is. It makes one feel special enough to go out to others, not lord it over them. -Ann E. Bermingham From saf@angel.elektra.ru Tue Aug 20 02:20:38 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:06:13 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608200608.AA10824@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Viens on reincarnation Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: Dr. A.M.Bain Subject: Views on reincarnation Hello! > COFFEE.EXE missing - Insert Cup and Press Any Key! - Do you want coffee in bed? - No, to the cup, please. AB> I do not know of E.Barker, so cannot express an opinion. It's interesting, does anyone in this list know her? (You're not a first one who doesn't). It seems that western theosophists aren't acquainted with her books, though they're first published in England. I recommend them, it's entertaining reading. They are stories, not treatises. Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet (Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru) From saf@angel.elektra.ru Tue Aug 20 02:21:44 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:05:26 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608200608.AA10822@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: E.S. Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: James S Yungkans Subject: E.S. Hello! > HPB said that The Inner group was the Manas [Buddhi-Manas?] > The E.S. was the Lower Manas [Kama-Manas?] > The T.S. was the Quarternary That explains why when ES fails all TS go crazy :() BTW, Your sq. brackets are obsolete. Terms used here by HPB show that in 1890 she've already migrated to the scheme used by AB/CWL/AAB/Heindel, etc... W/best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet P.S. To all: Last week some messages from theos-l were lost due technical means, so if i didn't reply to someone's message, please repeat. To those who asked for texts: i've received two requests: >from Uzren Skondric & mr. Bain. I'm delaying by technical means (internet server hangs). Address for personal replies: Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru From saf@angel.elektra.ru Tue Aug 20 02:22:16 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:05:40 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608200608.AA10823@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: PCs Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: PCs Hello! > A contrary, computer age began in 1980 or 1979. Since compu- >ters are known long ago, only then they began play a big part. . . AEB> In 1980 I switched from the graphic arts field to computers, AEB> but I never thought I was part of a mass trend. I've forgot one important point - someome can say: "Nothing misterious. Progress of technique allowed to create a first PC in 1979." But in 70's there were so called PDP-11 computers in the USA. These were "middle" & "mini" machines and never were PCs, AFAIK. In beginning of 80's in USSR the PCs called DVK were developed based on the PDP-11 architecture. (It's funny, but it was fully compa- tible and i've run on my home PC the programms developed in 1977 by DEC - i owned a DVK before buying this PC286). If we note that soviet elec- tronic industry falled behind comparatively with american or japanese, it proves that americans could develop a first PC in beginning of 70's but didn't. AEB> the interests of the yuppies and the Reagan administration: AEB> the quick accumulation of wealth with no thought to tomorrow. Contrary, we here very respect president Reagan and most that he've done. There were exhibition "Information technologies in US life" in Moscow in 1987 which changed my attitude to computers. Mr. Reagan helped to organize this exhibition and even wrote a "foreword", so I'm grateful to him. People blame "Reaganomics", but it helped to avoid crisis. Similiar situation is now in Russia: most people condemn Gaidar who lead radical reforms in 1992-93 being a prime- minister. Now his party even couldn't get to parlament. Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet (Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru) From saf@angel.elektra.ru Tue Aug 20 02:22:32 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:05:09 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608200608.AA10821@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: genetics Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= for: Liesel f. deutsch Subject: genetics Hello. > for how many generations Lysenko conducted the experiments of getting > mutations because of a change in the environment. I think that if you put a As I've understood, one generation sometimes is enough. Also, a few generations are enough to return to original type. But Lysenko thought that a several generations are required to guide through the gradual changing and "fixing". He gave the following sta- tistics: from 4000 grains survived only 84 plants. Date of sowing survived 27/VIII - IX 0 30/IX 7 of 102 5/X 22 of 95 after 10/X 0 Temperature at winter was -32 C Other data: (Total result) total/survived ratio First generarion 690/77 0.11 Second 685/308 0.45 Third 1376/784 0.57 The main change of genotype (28 to 42 chromosomes) resulted after a third generation. Most of experinents were lead in 1943-49. Lysenko's assistent, V. Karapetian reported that even in one "bush" there were different ears and sometimes in one ear - the different grains. L: You've converted one species to another... K: But no one will believe me because i haven't intermediate forms. L: And who said to you that they should be? K: Darwin... More, wheat from one party has migrated to _different_ existing sorts: eritrosperum, ferugineum, cesium, milturum. Paleontologists tryed but haven't find the intermediate forms and they will never find them, he said. As is well known a special weeds accompany the wheat, oats, flax. These weeds are never found outside the fields. Caucasian peasants who haven't heard about genetics always thought that there's a transmutation. W/best wishes, Konstantin Zaitzev 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet Address for personal replies: Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 19 22:02:37 1996 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:02:37 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Consciousness/Gurdjieff In-Reply-To: <960819115147_72724.413_FHP47-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960819115147_72724.413_FHP47-1@CompuServe.COM>, Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> writes >So the work is to try as best we can to exist in consciousness state #3. The >tool that Gurdjieff says we have for existing in consciousness state #3 is >"ATTENTION". It is, in fact, our only tool. The work is to include ourself in >our ATTENTION in every moment and at the same time include in our ATTENTION >whatever else we are attentive to. > >This is likened to "mindfulness" practices in certain forms of buddhism, and >"watchfulness" the secret code word in the new testatment about which Jesus >spoke. It is what the monks practice on Mt. Athos as esoteric Christianity. Indeed. The most immportant discipline of all is the discipline of ATTENTION - not to allow it to be "captured" - ie, sent to sleep. I learnt in School (G-based) of the 3 states of attention - scattered, captured, and controlled. Go for controlled! Not as easy as it seems, but it is relatively easy to "keep watch" for things or events which capture the attention - like TV, Movies, and a myriad other things. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From jmeier@microfone.net Tue Aug 20 06:26:42 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 06:26:42 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199608201026.AA14793@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Time Zones (Ozren) >> It started around 8:30 AM PDT (10:30 AM your time) >Could somebody help me convert this to Central European Time? >Thank you. > Ozren PDT = Pacific Daylight Time. add seven hours = Greenwich Mean Time From 72724.413@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 20 11:11:57 1996 Date: 20 Aug 96 07:11:57 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re:Consciousness/Gurdjieff Message-Id: <960820111157_72724.413_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM> Paul K. comments and asks (referring to my posting that the only tool we have to enter into a higher state of consciousness is our ATTENTION as explained by Gurdjieff) "I find this significant - This "Attention" - has the character of "intentionality" - in the sense that "Attention" is impossible without an act of intention...Would you say that "intentionality" is a pre-requisite to consciousness? Or does consciousness exist independently of "intention" ?" Yes, I agree Paul. ATTENTION requires INTENTIONALITY, in the same sense that Gurdjieff's "3rd state of consciousness" just does not happen unconsciously (except for brief moments accidentally). Effort is required. That is my experience. In the earlier example given by Richard I., of how we lose the awareness of Self when sitting in a movie theater for 2 hours, I can see quite clearly, that an effort on my part is required to be aware that I am witnessing the movie. Otherwise I just 'disappear' into it. Alan B. writes, "when my attention is "captured" - say by the movie in your example, I cannot avoid *knowing* that my attention is captured, though I recognize that this may not be the case for everyone." I agree with Alan in the sense that at some time, during the movie, in fact at many times, I discover that my attention has been captured. In those moments of discovery, it is true that I come back to the awareness of myself witnessing myself observing the movie. In fact, I can extend those moments with intention. But inevitably I disappear again, being recaptured by the movie. So, constant effort of intention is required to include myself in my ATTENTION. Good movies, good novels, etc. are examples of how our life on this planet is designed to keep us "asleep," by keeping us always identified. Richard also made the important and frightening observation, "if modern life becomes primarily like sitting in one highly entertaining, attention-grabbing, but -Self-erasing- movie after another, who is to say that every human soul will leave this world." Gurdjieff agrees with this, saying that modern man can get along very nicely without a soul. And that sooner or later, if we do not work on ourselves in the sense of intentionally using our ATTENTION to be aware of ourselves, we are destroyed forever. This seems true to me also. Many of us intuit a kind of chain of lives, but really cannot recall them. In that sense each life, like this new life we experience in this incarnation, is another opportunity to enter into a higher state of human consciousness, than is true for most of humanity. This posits that through the effort of being in this higher state of human consciousness more or less consistently, there is some sort of continuity of consciousness (but not of personality) beyond the doorway of physical death. From pmmkien@main.com Tue Aug 20 12:00:53 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 07:00:53 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608201150.GAA18543@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: More Cosciousness Paul K. wrote: >> The idea that some >>"conscousness" whatever that is, incarnates or controls a body? >>How does it do this? > Jerry S. replied: > By a process of self-expression. One of the inherent >characteristics of the Divine Monad is its creativity--it has an >innate desire to self-express. But it is the Ego that does it, not >the personal ego. The ego-body relationship is two-way, while >the Ego--body relationship is one-way. Think of it as buddhi vs >manas, if that makes it any better. The body is an expression of >atma-buddhi, but manas is its expression too and so there >is a sharing of control between manas and the physical body. This is the way most theosophists see it. The problem that I see, is that it's all very unclear - not just the way you wrote it, but the way all theosophical texts state it - More questions are raised than are answered. What do we mean by the Ego? or by Manas? Sure, I can read the texts and get the definition there. But do we know what we are talking about when we use these words? Most neurophysiologists have trouble with even the notion that a "mind" somewhere controls the body ("the ghost in the machine") and here Theosophists are proposing "atma-buddhi, the Ego, Manas, etc..It's all too much to explain the phenomenom of the human being. Plus - it all has to be taken on faith! In that sense - it isn't a science (divine or otherwise). How about starting with "Occam's razer" and not proposing more entities than are absolutely necessary? I would then begin with the question of whether we need to postulate anything other than the physical brain to explain consciousness - and go from there. Any ideas? Paul K. From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue Aug 20 18:51:34 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 16:51:34 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB8EB8.03E9C800@ppp57.dk-online.dk> Subject: Re: authorial reluctance (Martin) Encoding: 78 TEXT > It seems funny to me that you're refering to the one Upanishad >I've got on my book shelf. (although this Upanishad is considered the most >important one in the Muktikopanishad - so, your reference may not be >incidental). I've got a translation by the advaita ashrama that runs like this >(4.92): A twist of fate perhaps, I have the exact same edition :-) >'All Jivas are, by their very nature, illumined from the very beginning >and they are ever immutable in their nature. He who, having known this, >rests without (sees the needlessness of) seeking further knowledge, >is alone capable of realising the Highest Truth.' >This may be an akward translation of Gaudapada's karika, I've no idea >(I know a little bit of Sanskrit but it would take me ages to translate >this verse) It takes me a very long time too, but here follows the transliteration of line 1: AdibuddhaH prak.Rityaiva sarve dharmAH sunishchitAH | "Adibuddha is the enforcers/will aspect of the Law (also doctrine) of the whole physical plane". A theosophist will immediately think that this must be the universal physical plane and Shankara adds - ...AdibuddhAH prak.Rityai svabhAvata eva yatha nityaprakAshasvarUpaH savitaivaM nityabodhasvarUpA.... prak.Rityai svabhAvata - 7th universal principle - svabhavat, also 7th plane as opposed the other prakriti - of the solar system (the 2 prakritis of the Bhagavad Gita) nityaprakAshasvarUpaH - their own eternal form of light savitaivam nityabodhasvarUpa - their own eternal sun-like form of bodha I am working on a translation of this (much larger piece) and will correlate with certain mahatma letters which treats of these principles. But anyone can check my translations in the dictionary >Shankara's commentary (English translation) contains a reference to > 'eternal light' which might be a translation of svabhavat(?) Rather nityaprakAsha, but you are on the track. I normally find interesting passages in translations and only then use the text. Svabhavat will generally be found as self-existence, own-being, luminous existence or something similar. >In the next karika there's an annotation by swami nikhilananda that: >.......... >Also, this type of monism (at least as it is presented by this swami) >neglects the fact that we *learn through experience*. It's not enough to sit >down and think that one is enlightened already. >What do you think? Since the swami has translated a discussion on the highest dhyani-chohans into statements on the human ego, I not even paid a moments attention to his comments. But you're quite right, the process of understanding - path of enlightenment - or workings of buddhi in manas - is certainly a process. In fact mistranslations is also the cause of this passive philosophy. The proper translation of the 3 ancient paths of the B.G is a) Sa.nkhya, literally numerology - esoteric study, indian kabbalah as Alan might put it. Their (the esoteric students) real philosophy is hinted at by Vyasa, they start with an immutable principle, etc. The commonly known sutras are only semi-esoteric and are not worth much. b) service, improvement of personal karma - insufficient for liberation c) Yoga - whose goal is samadhi, literally union "with the logos" as Subba Row puts it. To travel on more than one path, would just as today be possible, if not necessary. So being merely a theosophist or Advaita Vedantin has never constituted a path. Even a swami will have to exercise one of these to move anywhere in the right direction. In friendship, Kim From RIhle@aol.com Tue Aug 20 17:35:59 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:35:59 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960820133558_264218159@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: More Consciousness Paul M.M.K. writes> >What do we mean by the Ego? or by Manas? Sure, I can read the texts and get >the definition there. But do we know what we are talking about when we use >these words? Most neurophysiologists have trouble with even the notion that >a "mind" somewhere controls the body ("the ghost in the machine") and here >Theosophists are proposing "atma-buddhi, the Ego, Manas, etc..It's all too >much to explain the phenomenom of the human being. Plus - it all has to be >taken on faith! In that sense - it isn't a science (divine or otherwise). > >How about starting with "Occam's razer" and not proposing more entities than >are absolutely necessary? I would then begin with the question of whether we >need to postulate anything other than the physical brain to explain >consciousness - and go from there. > Richard Ihle writes> Many valid concerns, Paul. I agree that the Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP) may be doomed unless we can do a little "shaving." On the other hand, Jerry S. is a very great champion of one simple concept regarding theosophical terminology: all of it is meaningless unless one undertakes some meditation or other "spiritual" practice which allows one to start seeing that the terms have some definite "experiental correlatives" that one can actually get familiar with for oneself. He was right on the money in one of his posts to Alan when he said something approximately like, "It is only after returning to the contrasting states of consciousness following meditation that one begins to realize that he or she had been in a less differentiated condition of consciousness." To a person who has never experienced this, the verbiage might seem empty of meaning; to a fellow meditator, however, the reaction might be, "Yes, I have experienced this myself." Does this mean Jerry and the fellow meditator are necessarily talking about exactly the same experience? No. For example, Jerry and I seem to disagree on the exact nature of ~manas~ consciousness--his experience is that it can include the pictorial (inner imagery) while I have a more simple "word-thought" orientation. Nonetheless, we talk using the term ~manas~ and I can see a little of what he means, and perhaps he can sometimes see what I mean as well. We continue to talk, I believe, because of a mutual conviction that the other person has actually experienced ~something~ in his inner life which ~manas~ seems like it should attach to. If I thought Jerry were just throwing around the term because he had learned it like a scholar in John Algeo's Theosophical Academy, I wouldn't bother talking with him about it any more. At the end of the day, and as more theosophists talk about ~manas~ in light of their own meditative experiences, the term will probably be more meaningful. It might even be able be rendered in English as ~mental~ (desire-mental, mental, Spirit-mental). For now, however, ~manas~ is probably OK simply because its meaning is ~not~ quite consensual enough to give it what would be a more finished English equivalent. Regarding your statement, "I would then begin with the question of whether we need to postulate anything other than the physical brain to explain consciousness--and go from there," I think I am on safe ground when I say that is ~exactly where~ most theosophists usually do start. My difference with you may be in the idea that they need to "postulate" anything at all in order to "go from there." My contention is simply that they begin to watch their inner conditions a little more carefully--perhaps assisted by meditative practice or other means--and that certain characteristics of consciousness start revealing themselves on their own. And one of these characteristics, it seems to me, is that depending upon its particular "embranglement of the moment" with animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, mental, or Spirit-mental nature, consciousness can be experienced along a "continuum"--from gross to subtle. Why is it important to know anything about exact details like this at all? Well, different people may have their own reasons for wanting to know. Jerry S. and I probably have at least one similar reason: better knowledge is crucial for getting more ~practical control~ over oneself and what one is able to do. Never deviating from the idea that the physical brain is the sine qua non of consciousness is probably wonderful science. Attaining certain subtle states of consciousness in meditation and then "analogizing" that an "Undifferentiated Consciousness" must therefore be one of the pre-existing Primal Components of creation is undoubtedly rotten science. However, there are perhaps those on this list who are convinced that the former model may just produce more scientists looking at the subject as objective observers . . . while the latter--even if it is "objectively unsupported" and merely "heuristic"--has the definite potential to produce Adepts. . . . But I agree that we could work on our words and thank you for continuing to remind us of this. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Sat Aug 17 15:08:35 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:05:35 -0300 From: Subject: Unveiled Isis(Peter&Paul) Priority: normal Message-Id: <36A76614CF@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Hi Jerry, I wrote: >BOOK III, chapter V (191,217) page 210 HPB states that Paul was >the only apostle to receive gnosis from Jesus. But at chapter >III (116,145) page 134 she says that Jesus taught magi to John, >and at chapter IV (153,185) page 167 she says that Jesus teach >his gnosis to SOME disciples (more than one disciple). >So, what did HPB want to say? How many disciples receive Jesus >gnosis from Jesus himself? JHE reply: >I have already mentioned several times that HPB speaks of three >Jesus: an historical, a Biblical and a theological. Unless those >distinctions are made, HPB will appear to contradict herself in >every chapter. In chapter V, HPB is writing here of the >historical Paul who received gnosis from the Christ through >visions. The other references you mention concern the Biblical >Jesus. So HPB recognices that Jesus (biblical) teached his gnosis to . At first sight, I thinked that HPB are saying that Jesus teached his doctrines to none of his disciples, but only to Paul (through visions). Did Peter receive this gnosis? BOOK III,chapter IV (153,185) page 163 HPB writes that Peter, the apostle of circumcision, preached the doctrines opposed to Paul, and describes 2Peter 2:18-31 as a example of such discord. HPB describes that Peter did not understand Jesus message. At the same time HPB cites Theodoreth that writes "nazarens uses the gospel of Peter" and concludes that Peter was a nazarene. Referring to Codex Nazarene "Jesus Mesio is Nebu, the FALSE Messiah, destroyer the of ancient religion" (chapter III - 116,145 -page 123). So she concludes that christianity is a "heresy within a heresy". I think that HPB are opposing two heresies within the judaism: the old nazarenes (Peter is included here) and the new heresy: the christianity (Jesus is included here, HPB says that Jesus was a nazaren reformer). BUT at page 139 HPB describes the gnostic system of Basilides,the follower of doctrines of Matthew and Peter (???) (references to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VII,XVII) and refers to him as teaching the correct doctrine. So, now, Peter (Basilides reflects his doctrines in accordance with Clement) and Jesus (the false Messiah of Codex) has the same doctrine. We have a problem here do you agree? Solution: There is no contradiction between Jesus and Peter, and the negative view given by HPB to Peter is wrong. Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Sat Aug 17 15:13:57 1996 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:10:57 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: <36BDE65DF3@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Hi Jerry, Some more questions about the historicity of Jesus as stated in Toldoth. Unveiled Isis, BOOK III chapter III (116-145) page 135 HPB refers to Epiphanius, Panarion I,II Haer XXVII,VI that refers to idolatry of carpocratians that represented the image of Jesus made by Pilate. HPB gives credility to this testimony of Epiphanius, so Jesus lived under Pilate. Unveiled Isis BOOK III chapter III (116-145) page 119 HPB reproduce Toldoth that states that Peter was contemporany to Jesus. Some lines before, at same chapter HPB refers to Christ of Paul (who is the authorship???) and agrees that Peter lived under Nero reign. So Jesus never can be lived one century before. Basilides believed that Jesus was not crucified, but "received the form of Simon", so he "did not suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene". Basilides also accepted Gospel of Matthew (Clement of Alexandria Stromata VII,XVII cited by HPB Unveiled Isis BOOK III, chapter III, page 139). This passage about Simon of Cyrene is present in Matthew 27:32, and it seems that Basilides recognices the description given in Matthew about Jesus passion, as authentical (even though his interpretation is different from ortodoxy). Toldoth gives no reference about Jesus crucifixion. So, comparing this two sources (gospel of Matthew and Toldoth) it seems that Basilides recognices the authenticity of story told in Matthew. http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers file ECF01.TXT IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES,BOOK I,chapter XXIV 4. Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father. Abrantes From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Aug 20 20:07:32 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:07:32 +1200 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960820200732.0067e338@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Consciousness At 10:56 PM 19/08/96 -0400, you wrote: >Sy Ginsburg - I appreciate your summary of the Gurjieff view of >consciousness. You go on to write, > >>Gurdjieff says we have for existing in consciousness state #3 is >>"ATTENTION". It is, in fact, our only tool. The work is to include ourself in >>our ATTENTION in every moment and at the same time include in our ATTENTION >>whatever else we are attentive to. >> > >I find this significant - This "Attention" - has the character of >"intentionality" - in the sense that "Attention" is impossible without an >act of intention...Would you say that "intentionality" is a pre-requisite to >consciousness? Or does consciousness exist independently of "intention" ? > >Paul K. > Living in the Moment is what it seems to be called today. Here is a nice little tale from the works of Vitvan. "Today I can truly and freely say: "I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step is enough for me." But once, when I was very discouraged, my teacher told me this story. (He had gotten me along to where I sensed how vast was the world of knowledge; how much I did not know, and how utterly insignificant I was. I said, "The vastness,the illimitableness of it is overwhelming; I can't do it; no mortal can do it." I was ready to quit.) He said to me: "I was with my teacher in India where we visited another Guru in the Himalaya mountains, and there we met a chela of that teacher who was saying about what you are saying - that one might as well quit, it is so overwhelmingly vast. Finally, the Guru got up and took a lantern off the wall of the cabin we were in and lit it, saying to the chela, 'Come with me outside.' After the chela followed him outside, he said: 'Here, take this lantern with this letter; I want you to go up the mountain to my friend's place; there deliver the letter.' It was dark outside and quite stormy; the chela said, 'I cannot see the way in this darkness and storm!' The Guru placed the lantern in the hand of the chela - "See," he said, "the light shines three feet ahead of you. Walk those three feet; see - it shines three feet ahead of you. Walk with the light; it will be there three feet ahead of you all the way." So, I am not concerned with that overwhelming vastness any more, for I shall walk three feet with the Light!>Today I can truly and freely say: "I do not ask to see the distant scene; >one step enough for me." But once, when I was very discouraged, my teacher >told me this story. (He had gotten me along to where I sensed how vast was >the world of knowledge; how much I did not know, and how utterly insignificant I was. I said, "The vastness,the illimitableness of it is overwhelming; I can't do it; no mortal can do >it." I was ready to quit.) He said to me: >"I was with my teacher in India where we visited another Guru in the >Himalaya mountains, and there we met a chela of that teacher who was saying >about what you are saying - that one might as well quit, it is so >overwhelmingly vast. Finally, the Guru got up and took a lantern off the >wall of the cabin we were in and lit it, saying to the chela, 'Come with me >outside.' After the chela followed him outside, he said: 'Here, take this >lantern with this letter; I want you to go up the mountain to my friend's >place; there deliver the letter.' >It was dark outside and quite stormy; the chela said, 'I cannot see the way >in this darkness and storm!' >The Guru placed the lantern in the hand of the chela - >"See," he said, "the light shines three feet ahead of you. Walk those three >feet; see - it shines three feet ahead of you. Walk with the light; it will >be there three feet ahead of you all the way." >So, I am not concerned with that overwhelming vastness any more, for I >shall walk three feet with the Light!" I find that I am aware of the vastness but chose to focus the attention on the moment in which I am. I accept that events will come into my life in any moment and if I pay attention to the moment then I will know what to do about the event and so follow my dhama even though I cannot see the full picture. Some part of me does see it but I cannot connect to that yet. Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Tue Aug 20 20:10:42 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:10:42 +1200 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960820201042.0069d5bc@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Time Zones (Ozren) At 06:30 AM 20/08/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>> It started around 8:30 AM PDT (10:30 AM your time) >>Could somebody help me convert this to Central European Time? >>Thank you. >> Ozren > >PDT = Pacific Daylight Time. >add seven hours = Greenwich Mean Time > Hi Jim, May I also avail myself of your expertise and find out what time it would be in NZ central? Many thanks. Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding From euser@euronet.nl Tue Aug 20 21:51:47 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:51:47 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608202151.XAA16161@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Manual for Revolution by HPB? Hi- A short note: this manual for revolution stuff and the reaction/replies by TSs is dealt with in quite an extensive way by Iverson L. Harris in his booklet ~Mme Blavatsky defended~ (a Point Loma publication). Martin From euser@euronet.nl Tue Aug 20 21:51:41 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:51:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608202151.XAA16153@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Magic, Enochian Style Jerry wrote: > It shouldn't be, I agree. Especially as HPB both practiced it and discussed it. But it is. The very word raises theosophical hackles, as Chuck can tell you (of course Chuck doesn't care as much as I do). Magick, with a final k, is Crowley's definition: "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will." By this definition we are all magicians, and life itself is magical. It sure is. I wonder when Theosophists will arrive at an understanding of this point. In my view, having an open mind to the intricate, magical, operations going on in nature all the time, makes life far more interesting, joyful and playful. Maybe it is use of personal will for selfish purposes that is identified with magic in Theosophical circles. But that is only one facet of magic(k), and many people are aware of the dangers of that approach nowadays (I noticed that on the Golden Dawn Int'l mailing list to which I subscribed some time ago - I also have a good laugh at times, reading some playful messages on that list). Anyway, I strongly suspect that there are events in nature analogical to burning your fingers on a hot stove:) Jerry> Enochian Magic is a form of ritual magic, but I have introduced a yogic form that I call Enochian Yoga, for those who don't like ritual. Started by Dr. John Dee, it was elaborated on by the Golden Dawn and Crowley. I have done my own elaborations on it as well. Today it is a stand-alone magical school that some people use as a religion (kinda like Theosophy). Its main claim to fame is its unique map of the magical universe, which is every bit as colorful and enticing as the Tree of Life. There are four Watchtowers, one for each of the four lower cosmic planes. Each Watchtower contains 156 Squares, and each Square is a unique region or subplane of the invisible worlds. Each Square has a ruling deity, and so on. Are these Watchtowers symbolic for some part of the human constitution? And why the number of 156 squares? J> Basically, I theosophied Enochian Magic and turned it into a workable and relatively complete magical system. For this, some regard me as an Adept, while others regard me as a cheap charlatan (for example, I have been called an "armchair magican" because I do not belong to any magical organization, and my Enochian Physics was called "more about Theosophy than about magic" and so on). So, you've created a map of the (inner) universe, so to speak? There must be some correspondences with the sephiroth, I think? Do you describe different types of energies/states of consciousness (I gather you do - what are the correspondences with the theosophical principles-elements ?) >Tantricism is a different case, except when the original tantrical works >are meant by this, I think. Often Tantricism is associated with sex magic(k) >nowadays, and that is generally considered to be a 'no' in Theosophical >circles Jerry> Yes, but there is sex magic and sex magic. If we agree with Jung's theory of the anima and animus, then real sex magic is nothing more than the process of becoming a whole and complete person--a re-unification of the psyche. However, theosophists throw out the baby with the bath water and dismiss the whole subject. Yes, that's too bad. The integration of male and female qualities is of paramount importance IMO, when one wishes to be a whole person. Intuition, feeling, etc. may be more important than intellect, especially in our current era of confusion and loss of values. Only the development of wholistic individuals will steer society in the right direction, in my view at least. > What is this tantricism in your books all about? It is about feeling whole and complete--a samadhi if you like. You see yourself as the King of the Watchtower, and unite with the primary Goddess (or vice versa if you are a woman). This union can be either a physical union as done in ritual, or a psychic (visualized) union as is done in yoga. This is all because I am coming at the topic from an Enochian viewpoint, and such a visualization or ritual makes sense from this perspective. But the same result can be achieved by other means because the goal is a degree of samadhi, or emptiness and bliss. An example of this [other means] can be found if you do some work in groups that promote and practice ways of establishing a healthier type of society. At least I enjoy doing some work in LETS systems. There are many fine persons participating in the area where I live and the number of cities participating in these LETS is growing steadily. I meet interesting people, who feel more alive and well when doing jobs for each other in a not too commercial way. The social 'ingredient' is very important in such systems and it is my opinion that that is a necessary part of feeling whole. You can't party on your own.. It is difficult to be not influenced by depressing working conditions, including people who feel reluctant to do their job. That is probably one factor why there is such a big felt need for changing the way companies work. I'm curious whether human resources management will become a permanent feature in our societies. Thanks for asking, Martin. Jerry S. Member, TI And thanks for telling me (and others) a bit about your work. Martin Member, TI PS I noticed the mentioning of to almost identical names on this board in connection to Theosophy: Ken Wilber and Ken Wilbur. I thought these were different persons, but I just like to know if that's the case or if it was a typo (by Chuck?). (Ken Wilber I know from his writings on transpersonal psychology, but who's the other Ken?) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 20 23:26:53 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:26:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Consciousness/Gurdjieff In-Reply-To: <960820111157_72724.413_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960820111157_72724.413_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM>, Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> writes >Alan B. writes, "when my attention is "captured" - say by the movie in your >example, I cannot avoid *knowing* that my attention is captured, though I >recognize that this may not be the case for everyone." > >I agree with Alan in the sense that at some time, during the movie, in fact at >many times, I discover that my attention has been captured. In those moments of >discovery, it is true that I come back to the awareness of myself witnessing >myself observing the movie. In fact, I can extend those moments with intention. >But inevitably I disappear again, being recaptured by the movie. So, constant >effort of intention is required to include myself in my ATTENTION. My experience also - thought you'd like to know that! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Aug 20 23:30:27 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 19:30:27 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608210037.UAA01386@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: JRC, Re: nucleu of elitism Dear John, I'm not sure I understand your point of view. If we are a nucleus what is our purpose? If we are one of a series of nuclei, what do the other nuclei represent? I think it boils down basically to that I'm really not quite sure, now that you wrote, for what purpose we're forming a nucleus or a network. I think if we clarify our purpose, we'll also clarify what term to use for what we're forming. Just as a side line, I've come to think that going after your own personal growth is not necessarily a selfish act. If we are to be of service to the human family, the more personal growth we can achieve, the better, the more sophisticated, and honed to fit the occasion can be our service. Also there's the 100th monkey phenomenon. For some reason, if someone learns something, this makes it easier for someone else, not necessarily in the same location, to be able to learn the same thing more easily. So one can be useful to humanity just by learnnig something for oneself. I may have citied Rupert Sheldrake before. He describes an experiment which points to this direction. In Japan, a children's poet wrote a brand new nursery rhyme. This was transliterated into Western letters, along with a very old nursery rhyme. It was passed through a few hands, so that the recipients in England wouldn't know which was which. They tried to learn both nursery rhymes by heart. They found that the age old one was easier to learn than the brand new one. So it seems we're really all connected. Giggles are great, Liesel From pmmkien@main.com Wed Aug 21 01:07:12 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 20:07:12 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608210057.TAA29196@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Consciousness, Gurjieff etc. Sy Ginsburg writes: > ATTENTION requires INTENTIONALITY, in the same sense that >Gurdjieff's "3rd state of consciousness" just does not happen unconsciously >(except for brief moments accidentally). Effort is required. That is my >experience. This is also the view of Edmund Husserl. I recommend to anyone interested in the issue of consciousness, the book "Ideas" by Husserl. It's a heavy tome, but in my view more transparent than most theosophical texts. In it, Husserl derives an entire science of consciousness, and lays down the methodology and techniques for exploring consciousness. But then - the question: If we accept that consciousness is "intentional" then: 1. Intentionality, or effort require a sense of the "ego" or "I". 2. Is it at all relevant to discuss consciousness as seperate from the ego, the way that many theosophists and Krishnamurti do? Personally, I don't think so, and find K's expression "choiceless awareness" has nothing to do with consciousness. Many Eastern religions speak of transcending the "ego". Sure, it can be done - but then once the ego is transcended, is there any consciousness left? 3. Theosophists also speak of consciousness often as seperate from the body. Is this again relevant? Or are we to accept the idea of a disembodied "ego"? Paul M.M.K. From jmeier@microfone.net Tue Aug 20 22:35:09 1996 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 22:35:09 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199608210235.AA12009@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Time Zones (Bee) >Hi Jim, >May I also avail myself of your expertise and find out what time it would be >in NZ central? >Many thanks. >Bee Brown Expertise?? Flatterer :) As it so happens, I had to call somebody in New Zealand today anyhow, so I know that 10pm in NY (EDT) is 2pm NZ next day, so from Pacific Daylight Time, add 7 hours to get Greenwich Mean, add another 12 to get NZ Auckland (I don't know from NZ central) Regards, Jim From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 20 06:14:09 1996 Date: 20 Aug 96 02:14:09 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Attavada, the heresy of a soul vs. Universal Soul Message-Id: <960820061409_74024.3352_BHT155-1@CompuServe.COM> In the glosary to the Voice of the Silence HPB writes; 5) Soul is used here for the Human Ego of Manas .. 6) Sakkayaditthi "delusion of personality" 8) Attavada, the heresy of the belief in Soul or rather the separateness of Soul or Self fromt he One Universal, infinite Self. 9) The tawagyanee is the "knower' or discriminator of the principles in nature and in man: and atamguanne is the knower of Atman or the Universal, ONE SELF. Keith: These glosses along with my mediation on the the sections of VOS they refer to, has suggested to me that HPB is suggesting that what is commonly called "soul' in the West is really more like the "psyche" of the same name, in the sense that it is an illusion in time and space in the Maya Maya. The real Soul is a universal and exists beyond the existant in the timeless, spaceless ONE. The mind or Manas maintains its existense in an illusiory way by discriminating itself from the One, the inner from the outter. The only possible goal would not be individual salvation, but a merging with the Soul of the One. Thus the Nirmankaya vestiture is the only possible goal for the aspirant, in the sense that no gets out of Maya A L O N E. It is ALL ONE OR NO ONE. Yes or no? Namaste Keith PRice From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 20 06:42:35 1996 Date: 20 Aug 96 02:42:35 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Nucluei - Clones of Elitist Brotherhoods? Message-Id: <960820064235_74024.3352_BHT155-2@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >These are ideas that are brewing just below the surface for me. Has anyone ever >thought anything like this? That the appeal of the Masters is in some way, the >appeal of (God forbid) a sports star who seems larger than life, and that I can >share in his or her glory by collecting trading cards the way some collect >tidbits of thesophical history? I think you have a very good point here. But it's easy for people to want to group together and feel "special". Even though it's a false specialness that is actually blocking out the connection to one's Higher Self, which is really the only non-special specialness there is. It makes one feel special enough to go out to others, not lord it over them. -Ann E. Bermingham Keith: Very appropriate comment. I think this is my individual karma and I would suggest it is shared with many of those with pluto in Leo (baby boomers). We have a deep need from past lives to express ourselves at all cost in perhaps a self-important "royal" manner with little concern for the people we are suppposedly trying to reach. One astrologer has suggested that Pluto in Leo suggests that those of us with this plane strong in our chart in this sign were incarnated together during the Age of Leo (in the precession of the equinoxes system). We had an Atlantis type mentality of using power for selfish ends without acknowledging to ourselves where it can from (the Divivne Sun through crystals etc) or where it was going and who it was affecting leading to the myth of the submersion of Atlantis due to "black magic". Thus our goal is supposedly to overcome selfishness and direct current technology to the creation of a New World Order of peace, prosperity and group experiences of spirituality on a global scale through computers perhaps thus ushering in the Age of Aquarius. The Group Planetary energy would be controlled, acknowledged and directed by a connection of the GROUP to the DIVINE PURPOSE. I think this fits in somewhat with our discussion of the VOICE of THe SIlence. The voice is a spiritual voice beyond the individual or cultural subconsious and seeks to connect with the spiritual plan for the path our planet and the next stage of humanity as trully a practical and spiritual brotherhood. Big perhaps!! Bailey seem to really run with the idea of the WORLD TEACHER as not a person or Avatar type incarnation, but a WORLD ENSOULMENT through meditation and psychic linking, perhaps. I think all groups preach universal brotherhood, peace, love and goodness. Even the KuKluxKlan and Louis Farakan believe that everybody would be happier with THEIR ideas of "progress" and harmony. The problem isn't the idea of brotherhood but "en actu" as HPB states. Namaste Keith Price From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 20 23:06:23 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:06:23 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Nucleus of Elitism In-Reply-To: <960819130904_72723.2375_FHP23-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960819130904_72723.2375_FHP23-1@CompuServe.COM>, "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes >It makes one feel special enough to go >out to others, not lord it over them. > >-Ann E. Bermingham > Thanks for that, Ann - succinctly put! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Wed Aug 21 04:42:25 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:42:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960821004224_506356445@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: irc Eldon, Well, the thing on the screen said #theosophy, so I assume I was in the right place... Chuck From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Wed Aug 21 08:10:14 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:10:14 +1200 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960821081014.00692600@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Time Zones (Bee) At 10:39 PM 20/08/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>Hi Jim, >>May I also avail myself of your expertise and find out what time it would be >>in NZ central? >>Many thanks. >>Bee Brown > > >Expertise?? Flatterer :) > >As it so happens, I had to call somebody in New Zealand today anyhow, so I >know that 10pm in NY (EDT) is 2pm NZ next day, so > >from Pacific Daylight Time, >add 7 hours to get Greenwich Mean, >add another 12 to get NZ Auckland (I don't know from NZ central) > >Regards, >Jim Thanks Jim, that seems to mean I have to be real keen to get up at 3.30am to have a chat. I am not my best in the middle of the night so I will see. Maybe if I should have an unusual insomniac night!!!!! Also a general request to the list from a TS member in Wellington who may be spending a short time working in Sacramento. Is there a Lodge there or any TS members? She says it may be shortly that she may be there. Cheers. > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 20 23:31:20 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:31:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Consciousness/Gurdjieff In-Reply-To: <960820111157_72724.413_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960820111157_72724.413_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM>, Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> writes >hrough the effort of being in this higher state of human consciousness >more or less consistently, there is some sort of continuity of consciousness >(but not of personality) beyond the doorway of physical death. I think this is true in any case - that there is continuity of consciousness (not personality) beyond physical death. Those of us who make the effort to work on ourselves are likely to be a little better equipped to handle it when the time comes. It's a complicated subject for which I have a deal of [subjective] evidence, so it's kind of third object unprovable stuff. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From saf@angel.elektra.ru Wed Aug 21 05:50:44 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:40:26 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608210941.AA17084@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Nature of space Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: Liesel f. deutsch Subj: Nature of space Hello! L> I never understood what he was talking about. L> I understand 3 dimensions, because that's what's tangible to me. I tried to develop a drafting system for displaying a 4-di- mentional object on a paper and came to following conclusion: When we draw 3D objects, we use perspective, i.e. changing right angles to more on less that 90 degrees. When we draw 4D objects, we should also change lines to bro- ken lines. These are especially imaginary "guidelines". The system proposed isn't fully scientific, it aims only presenta- tion in popular literature. Konstantin. (Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru) From saf@angel.elektra.ru Wed Aug 21 05:51:12 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:40:00 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608210941.AA17083@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: Languages Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: wichm@xs4all.nl Subj: Languages Hello! m> This would mean that these masters(Egypt & Tibet) learnt English in the m> same pace as Mme. Blavatsky did! I wonder whether you have read the early Mahatmas don't belong to humanity more, they belong to a hie- rarchy. But they have to use human bodies to communicate. We people are more perfect beings than animals, but if incarnated in animal bodies we probably could be not very skilled animals. We (IV-th realm of nature) have our own physical bodies and can handle with animals without incarnating in animal bodies. But a V-th realm, hierarchy, hasn't their proper physical bodies and have to use human ones. K.H. writes in one of his letters how he placed the impor- tant letter off the bag and a goat had eaten it. BTW, if HPB want to create image of the "perfect mahatmas", she would never write this episode. The second important point is the following - when mahat- mas were ordinary people, the human bodies were not so perfect, as they are now. Look at the animals - they look more beautiful than people, run faster, etc. When they individualize and got human bodies, these bodies will be much better than ours. And those of us who will got liberation will look funny when trying to manage these nice bodies - it's like car driver trying to pilot airplane. The third important point - the monad (i.e. "mahatma him- self") and a higher self + physical body (let's call it the "full contents of Master") may not belong to the same man (how HPB explains in vol.III about Buddha & Shankaracharya or AAB explains on Jesus & Christ). These two cases aren't similiar, of course, but demonstrate that a free combination is possible. And a lower personality may be not so advanced as a higher self. m> I wonder whether you have read the early m> communications from the Brotherhood of Luxor to HPB as related Maybe, but i've read all the mahatma letters (except one published in this mail-list) only in russian translation. Konstantin. (Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru) From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Wed Aug 21 09:17:53 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:14:53 -0300 From: Subject: Gamaliel&Paul Priority: normal Message-Id: <90D14F25A7@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Alan wrote: >In any event, if we are to take Paul's account, he got his gnosis from >Gamaliel ... I think that this argument, contradicts even HPB... Yes, Acts states that Paul was a farisee and learned judaism from Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) Paul describes his revelation come from visions and not from Gamaliel (Gl 1:16). His first vision at Damascus comes from heaven (Acts 9:3, 1Cor15:8, Acts 22:6, Acts 26:13). This was not the only vision. Paul also refers to others visions such at Jerusalem temple, where Jesus instructs Paul to preach the gospel beteween gentiles (Acts 22:21, Gl 2:7). At 2Cor12:3 Paul indirectly refers to some that received from his personal contact with Jesus at . HPB also refers to this passage (Unveiled Isis chap III (116-145), page 132) and recogniced its authenticity. She think at at this moment Paul received gnosis from Jesus and not from Gamaliel. We can not conclude that Gamaliel was a christian. At Acts 5:34 Gamaliel protected christians. Daniel Rops (LEglise des apotres et des martyrs I,29) cites three hypothesis to such protection: a question of justice, the secret sympathy of Gamaliel towards christians, a desire of Gamaliel to to provoke embarass to saducees. Are you rejecting that Paul received his gnosis from Jesus himself (through visions) ? Are you saying that Gamaliel was a christian and taught to Paul that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ ? Abrantes From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 21:13:29 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 17:13:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Skandhas & Self-Awareness Message-Id: <960821211329_76400.1474_HHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> >Indeed, allowing for the moment the possibility that reincarnation may be >true, I have long suspected that mere "aggregates of attachment" (~skandhas~) >might not be enough to bring the old Atma-Buddhi-manas package back for >another try: it seems reasonable that at least some Self-awareness must >remain in association with these "desire-seeds." Richard, this is an ancient Taoist teaching. Taoist Yoga includes techniques for the circulation of chi/prana to form a subtle body (Golden Flower) that will transcend physical death. Without this self-awareness, they maintain that reincarnation is impossible. I don't know how Theosophy would perceive this idea though. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 21:13:32 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 17:13:32 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Reply to Chuck Message-Id: <960821211332_76400.1474_HHL71-2@CompuServe.COM> Chuck: >Actually, I do care as much as you do, my approach is just a bit different. My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that one, Chuck. >Michael Bertieaux is in the TS???? This is hard to believe. I was given a copy of his book (Magickal Childe) and found it to be "interesting." Pictures may have improved it some, but I don't know. Some of his material is hard to take, and I also had a hard time with the idea that he was Kenneth Grant's guru. Small world, I guess. >By the way, has anyone called you an "Agent of the Anti-Christ" yet? Not to my face. What is in your books that would cause such a reaction? Maybe I need to read them again. I have no real love for Christianity, but I try not to say anything anti-religious in any of my books as a matter of course. Besides, my wife is a good Methodist, and she edits everything I write. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 21:13:34 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 17:13:34 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Pilgrim & The Pilgramage Message-Id: <960821211334_76400.1474_HHL71-3@CompuServe.COM> >I agree that the Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP) may be >doomed unless we can do a little "shaving." Richard, I just scanned THE PILGRIM AND THE PILGRAMAGE by Emily B. Sellon (given to me free in the mail this morning). She says a lot of what I have been saying. In fact, I was hard pressed to find anything in her little book that I would disagree with. Her viewpoint of fohat, for example, is exactly how I define it in my ENOCHIAN PHYSICS in 1988. Wish I had met her. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 21:13:41 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 17:13:41 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Consciousness Message-Id: <960821211340_76400.1474_HHL71-4@CompuServe.COM> >What do we mean by the Ego? or by Manas? Sure, I can read the texts and get >the definition there. But do we know what we are talking about when we use >these words? Guess I don't see your problem. Manas is mind, and even if we can't define mind very well in words, we all pretty much know what we mean by the word. Mind includes everything from high aspirations and intuitions to feelings and emotions. These terms are all clearly defined in modern psychology books. Nothing really spooky here. But Ego is another story. In order to understand Ego, you have to close down manas. This requires yoga, as a rule. But it sometimes happens spontaneously. When lower manas stops, even for just a second, we see Ego directly. For this reason, some yogis have compared the mind to a series of clouds and Ego to the light of the sun that the clouds usually obscure. > Most neurophysiologists have trouble with even the notion that >a "mind" somewhere controls the body ("the ghost in the machine") and here >Theosophists are proposing "atma-buddhi, the Ego, Manas, etc..It's all too >much to explain the phenomenom of the human being. Plus - it all has to be >taken on faith! In that sense - it isn't a science (divine or otherwise). Actually, you have to take the neurophysiologist's word on faith, just as much. He cannot prove his materialistic case either. Jung believed that the psyche was the "ghost in the machine" but clearly argued it to be unprovable (therefore a psychological truth rather than a physical truth). And no, the doctrine of Ego or Self does not have to be taken on faith. Jungian psychologists believe that their therapy "proves" its existence, and yogis believe that their yoga "proves" its existence too. If you don't want to take it on faith, then you can practice yoga and see for yourself. If you're not a yogi, go to a Jungian analyst and start working on your individuation. They will have you analyzing your dreams, where you will see your Self at work. >How about starting with "Occam's razer" and not proposing more entities than >are absolutely necessary? I would then begin with the question of whether we >need to postulate anything other than the physical brain to explain >consciousness - and go from there. When we use the Razor, we can boil all of the complex material down to just body, soul (mind), and spirit. This only adds one additional ingredient--spirit. And, we find that this trinity has been around for countless centuries. Scientists have been trying to prove that the brain is the source of consciousness for many years, and have yet to do so. The latest attempt, using neural networks and chaos theory has shown promise, but so far no cigar. And no brain theory can ever hope to explain telepathy and other ESP phenomena, which Jung berates them for ignoring. The only way that Jung himself could explain this stuff was his synchronicity theory, which he developed in collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli. This theory postulates a separate and independent psychic continuum that is spaceless (and therefore infinite) and timeless (and therefore eternal). A synchronistic event occurs whenever these two continuums touch together. Now this was too farfetched for mainstream psychology, and most psychologists still look to the brain for answers, and still ignore psychic and spiritual experiences which don't "fit" into the brain-is-the source-of-consciousness model. Jung was not a theosophist, but he was too smart to fall for the materialistic model of the brain being the source of consciousness. I personally have had experiences that cannot fit into the materialistic worldview. As I have said many times, whenever this occurs, your options are either death or revising your worldview. My experiences, so far, fit the theosophical worldview far better than any other, and so I consider myself a theosophist. This has little to do with faith. On the other hand, I find that a healthy brain is essential for what we could call normal waking-state consciousness. This is consciouness bound up with logical thinking. I subscribe to the theory that logic and reason are resultants of healthy brain activity, and that without a healthy brain, consciousness becomes associated with deviations (i.e, shades of irrationality). But consciousness itself doesn't need any associations at all. In fact, when divorced of all of these, it is called pure consciousness (cit). Although most scientists and psychologists would likely see this as a coma, and think it pathological, it is really its natural state, called in Tibetan Buddhism by the quaint name of clear light. Consciousness takes on associations (sounds, images, thoughts, feelings, and forms) when in some degree of physical manifestation (i.e., when anywhere below the Abyss). The materialist confounds these associations and identifies them with consciousness itself. The yogi, however, knows how to separate consciousness from its attendant associations. Jerry S. Member, TI From jhe@toto.csustan.edu Wed Aug 21 22:08:37 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:08:37 -0700 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Message-Id: <9608212208.AA08608@toto.csustan.edu> Subject: Historical Jesus Hi Abrantes, The following is in response to your last two posts. Abrantes: >>BOOK III, chapter V (191,217) page 210 HPB states that Paul was >>the only apostle to receive gnosis from Jesus. But at chapter >>III (116,145) page 134 she says that Jesus taught magi to John, >>and at chapter IV (153,185) page 167 she says that Jesus teach >>his gnosis to SOME disciples (more than one disciple). >>So, what did HPB want to say? How many disciples receive Jesus >>gnosis from Jesus himself? JHE reply: >>I have already mentioned several times that HPB speaks of three >>Jesus: an historical, a Biblical and a theological. Unless >>those distinctions are made, HPB will appear to contradict >>herself in every chapter. In chapter V, HPB is writing here of >>the historical Paul who received gnosis from the Christ through >>visions. The other references you mention concern the Biblical >>Jesus. Abrantes: >So HPB recognices that Jesus (biblical) teached his gnosis to >. At first sight, I thinked that HPB are saying >that Jesus teached his doctrines to none of his disciples, but >only to Paul (through visions). Did Peter receive this gnosis? JHE You will have to quote the passage you have in mind in order for me to find it. I have read through this section several times without finding a passage that say exactly what you are suggesting. The closest passage I can find is: "There was but one apostle of Jesus worthy of that name, and that was Paul." (II:241). But this passage does not mention the word "gnosis." The passage concerning John you have in mind might be: But his career at least as a public Rabbi was of a too short duration to allow him to establish a regular school of his own; and with the exception, perhaps of John, it does not seem that he had initiated any other apostle. (II: 147). This passage is commentary on the Biblical Jesus in light of ancient practice. She is suggesting that John would have been privileged to the deepest of the Biblical Jesus' teachings-- according to the NT story. But without knowing the exact passage you have in mind, your comments still lead me to believe that you are still not keeping in mind some of HPB's basic ideas that she is trying to show when she is discussing the NT. 1. She considers the Biblical Jesus to be mythical, patterned after other mythical and legendary figures. 2. She distinguishes between the Biblical Jesus and the Christ. The former is a mythical figure. The latter is a metaphysical abstraction denoting the spirit within all of us. 3. The NT Gospels evolved from a combination of legendary and mythical traditions. 4. Paul is an historical character, and his authentic writings do not speak of a historical Jesus, but of the Christ. 5. John the Baptist is an historical character but the Biblical accounts of his relations with Jesus is fictional. 6. Herod is an historical character, but the Biblical account of his killing the innocents is fictional and based upon Alexander Jennaeus' killing of the innocents. 7. Pilate is an historical character, but the Biblical account of his relations with Jesus is fictional. 8. Some of Jesus' disciples mentioned in the Bible are based upon historical characters that are discussed in the Talmud. But their relationship with the Biblical Jesus is fictional. Therefore HPB would say that the historical Paul received gnosis from the *Christ* (not the Biblical Jesus). She also would say that the Bible tells us that Jesus' disciples received teachings from him. But since HPB argues all through her book that the Biblical Jesus is mythical, then so is the Biblical account of his teachings to his disciples. Therefore one cannot take her statements about the Biblical disciples on the same level of meaning as the statements she makes about Paul. Even here, you still have to watch for when she is talking about the Biblical Paul, and when she is talking about the Historical Paul. So to answer your question: yes, HPB recognizes that the Biblical (i.e. mythical) Jesus taught his gnosis to some disciples. But she does not regard this as an historical event. She does regard Paul's receiving of Gnosis from the Christ (not the Biblical Jesus) as an historical event. But as we discussed before, the Greek word "christos" is older than Christianity, and in this case, not connected to the Biblical Jesus. As HPB and others have argued that the historical Paul knew nothing of the Biblical Jesus. Abrantes: >BOOK III,chapter IV (153,185) page 163 HPB writes that Peter, >the apostle of circumcision, preached the doctrines opposed to >Paul, and describes 2Peter 2:18-31 as a example of such discord. >HPB describes that Peter did not understand Jesus message. At >the same time HPB cites Theodoreth that writes "nazarens uses >the gospel of Peter" and concludes that Peter was a nazarene. >Referring to Codex Nazarene "Jesus Mesio is Nebu, the FALSE >Messiah, destroyer the of ancient religion" (chapter III - >116,145 -page 123). So she concludes that christianity is a >"heresy within a heresy". JHE Yes. The whole thing is a lot like Chinese boxes--each inside the other. In the center are the historical characters of Peter and Paul and the various elements that eventually came together to form the Biblical Jesus story. This box is enclosed by the authentic letters of Paul. This box is enclosed by the Talmudic stories of Peter, the Talmudic stories of Jesus, and the Biblical accounts of Paul (I think I read somewhere that Paul was also mentioned in the Talmud, but the reference was later disguised because of Christian objections to it). This box is enclosed by the Biblical accounts of Peter, Paul and Jesus, including later documents not written by Paul. This Box is enclosed by the theological interpretations of Jesus, Peter and Paul, based upon the Biblical writings, the authenticity of which was never questioned. Abrantes: >I think that HPB are opposing two heresies within the judaism: >the old nazarenes (Peter is included here) and the new heresy: >the christianity (Jesus is included here, HPB says that Jesus >was a nazaren reformer). JHE Yes. I think HPB is saying that the historical Jesus of Syria was a Nazarene reformer. Abrantes: >BUT at page 139 HPB describes the gnostic system of >Basilides,the follower of doctrines of Matthew and Peter (???) >(references to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VII,XVII) and >refers to him as teaching the correct doctrine. So, now, Peter >(Basilides reflects his doctrines in accordance with Clement) >and Jesus (the false Messiah of Codex) has the same doctrine. We >have a problem here do you agree? JHE You will have to quote the passage so that I can find it, else I cannot comment on it specifically. However, without seeing the passage, I would point out that HPB does discuss at length a Hebrew version of Matthew, described by St. Jerome but rejected by him. What I am suggesting here is that Basilides' documents may not be the same as those in the Bible. Even if they are, they may have been different version. Even if they are the same version, we have already found in the case of Marcion that it wouldn't matter anyway, because Marcion's interpretation was radically different. We know already that Basilides' ideas are also very different. So I don't see anyone being an accordance with anyone. For a modern example: both a Jew and a Christian accept the Book of Genesis. But Christian Theologians have for centuries found prophecies of Jesus in this book. Does that mean that a Jew who accepts the Book of Genesis should also accept Christ? Of course not. Abrantes: >Solution: There is no contradiction between Jesus and Peter, and >the negative view given by HPB to Peter is wrong. JHE There should not be any contradiction between the Biblical Jesus and the Biblical Peter because they were both formulated under the same Christian tradition. But this does not make HPB's comments concerning the historical personages behind the Biblical mythology wrong. Abrantes: >Some more questions about the historicity of Jesus as stated in >Toldoth. > >Unveiled Isis, BOOK III chapter III (116-145) page 135 HPB >refers to Epiphanius, Panarion I,II Haer XXVII,VI that refers to >idolatry of carpocratians that represented the image of Jesus >made by Pilate. HPB gives credility to this testimony of >Epiphanius, so Jesus lived under Pilate. JHE This passage is on page 150 of Vol. II, Ch. III in the original. HPB is giving credibility to the testimony she quotes from Epiphanius: "they kept painted portraits and even gold and silver images, and in other materials, which they *pretended* to be portraits of Jesus, and made by Pilate after the likeness of Christ." But neither HPB nor Epiphanius are saying that these images are of a historical Jesus, nor are they saying that they were really made by Pilate. Epiphanius uses the word "pretended", which I have highlighted in the quote. This quote in its full context, is part of a larger point HPB is making that the early Christians objected to graven images of Jesus. As she wrote on the preceding page, the only authorized image of Jesus during the time of Tertullian was a Jackel-headed figure "like Anubis" carrying a lamb. The image is of course symbolic, and is not a portrait of any historical Jesus. Abrantes: >Unveiled Isis BOOK III chapter III (116-145) page 119 HPB >reproduce Toldoth that states that Peter was contemporary to >Jesus. Some lines before, at same chapter HPB refers to Christ >of Paul (who is the authorship???) and agrees that Peter lived >under Nero reign. So Jesus never can be lived one century before. JHE The Talmudic Peter lived one century before. The Biblical Peter lived under Nero's reign. Abrantes: >Basilides believed that Jesus was not crucified, but "received >the form of Simon", so he "did not suffer death, but Simon, a >certain man of Cyrene". Basilides also accepted Gospel of >Matthew (Clement of Alexandria Stromata VII,XVII cited by HPB >Unveiled Isis BOOK III, chapter III, page 139). >This passage about Simon of Cyrene is present in Matthew 27:32, >and it seems that Basilides recognizes the description given in >Matthew about Jesus passion, as authentical (even though his >interpretation is different from orthodoxy). Toldoth gives no >reference about Jesus crucifixion. So, comparing this two >sources (gospel of Matthew and Toldoth) it seems that Basilides >recognizes the authenticity of story told in Matthew. JHE Basilides believed in a Gnostic Jesus, whose historicity is irrelevant. But if Basilides did recognize an historical Jesus who lived under Pilate, what does this prove other than that Basilides professed a more occult view of the Pilate-Jesus crucifixion tradition that was already established during his time. Basilides' acceptance or rejection of this tradition in itself neither proves or disproves its historicity, nor does it necessarily show that Basilides took it from an historical point of view. Jerry ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 22:48:16 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 18:48:16 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Eno Mag Message-Id: <960821224816_76400.1474_HHL34-3@CompuServe.COM> > Are these Watchtowers symbolic for some part of the human constitution? >And why the number of 156 squares? Neither Dee nor the Golden Dawn attempted to correlate the Watchtowers with a human being, but since they do correspond to cosmic elements, such a correlation should be easily possible. Why 156? Noone but the Angels really know that one. Each tablet is simply divided into 12x13 grid of 156 Squares. However, it is extremely interesting to me that the numbers 4 (Watchtowers, Calvary Crosses per Watchtower), 8 (Demons per subquadrant, Kerubic Angels per Watchtower), 16 (Lesser Squares per Subquadrant and the number of Subquadrants), 32 (Calvary Cross Angels), 64 (Archangels & Kerubic Angels), 128 (Demons), and 256 (lesser Squares) keep coming up all the time. These are squares of 2, and are the binary numbers used in coding computers. My publisher swears that most of the avid Enochian practitions are also computer nerds. Something to think about. > So, you've created a map of the (inner) universe, so to speak? There must be some correspondences with the sephiroth, I think? Not very many. Crowley tried this too, and found out that no clear correspondences exist. However, both have the Great Outer Abyss separating the higher 3 planes from the lower 4. At the end of my Enochian Magic (my first book), Figure 35 attempts to correlate the 30 Aethyrs with HPB's planetary chain of 12 Globes. >Do you describe different types of energies/states of consciousness >(I gather you do - what are the correspondences with the theosophical >principles-elements ?) The Enochian system, like other magical systems, are described largely in terms of imagery rather than "principles." The elements are used to transform each Square into a Truncated Pyramid ala the Golden Dawn (Mathers was truly a genius). But even with this, the goal is largely one of imagery (if water, you would expect to see a lake, etc). >: Ken Wilber and Ken Wilbur. I thought these were different >persons, but I just like to know if that's the case or if it was a typo >(by Chuck?). (Ken Wilber I know from his writings on transpersonal >psychology, but who's the other Ken?) Wilber is correct. I think "Wilbur" was a Freudian typo. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 22:48:10 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 18:48:10 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Response to Paul K. Message-Id: <960821224810_76400.1474_HHL34-1@CompuServe.COM> >1. Intentionality, or effort require a sense of the "ego" or "I". You may have the cart before the horse. I view it as the intentionality (focusing) of consciousness that creates the ego. >2. Is it at all relevant to discuss consciousness as seperate from the ego, >the way that many theosophists and Krishnamurti do? Personally, I don't >think so, and find K's expression "choiceless awareness" has nothing to do >with consciousness. Many Eastern religions speak of transcending the "ego". >Sure, it can be done - but then once the ego is transcended, is there any >consciousness left? Any yogi will tell you that consciousness can be separate from the ego. Psychologists usually equate the two, but this is not correct, as yoga can demonstrate. Ego consciousness occurs when consciousness focuses through the ego. It can also focus through other components. 3. Theosophists also speak of consciousness often as seperate from the body. Is this again relevant? Or are we to accept the idea of a disembodied "ego"? You have a "disembodied ego" every time you go to sleep. In dreams we often take on new egos, new personalities complete with full memories. Jerry S. Member, TI From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 21 15:14:49 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:14:49 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Gamaliel&Paul In-Reply-To: <90D14F25A7@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <90D14F25A7@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >At 2Cor12:3 >Paul indirectly refers to some that received from his personal contact >with Jesus at >. No. He does not suggest that he received a this from personal contact with Jesus. He does not even say that *he* received it, only that he knew someone who did receive it. Although scholars argue that Paul speaks indrectly about his own experience, it is *not* what Paul says, and there is no real evidence for such an assumption. "I know a man .." he says. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 21 15:17:20 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:17:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Gamaliel&Paul In-Reply-To: <90D14F25A7@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <90D14F25A7@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >We can not conclude that Gamaliel was a christian. At Acts 5:34 Gamaliel >protected christians. >Daniel Rops (LEglise des apotres et des martyrs I,29) cites three hypothesis to >such protection: >a question of justice, the secret sympathy of Gamaliel towards christians, a >desire of Gamaliel >to to provoke embarass to saducees. We cannot conclude that any of the apostles were Christians in the modern sense of the term. For a long time in the beginning what *later* became a separate religion was seen as a Jewish sect - which I believe it was, at that time. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 22 00:36:27 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 01:36:27 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Reply to Chuck In-Reply-To: <960821211332_76400.1474_HHL71-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960821211332_76400.1474_HHL71-2@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >>Michael Bertieaux is in the TS???? > This is hard to believe. I was given a copy of his >book (Magickal Childe) and found it to be "interesting." Pictures >may have improved it some, but I don't know. Some of his >material is hard to take, and I also had a hard time with the >idea that he was Kenneth Grant's guru. Small world, I guess. From the 1989 Supplement to my "Bishops Irregular": (He was consecrated a [gnostic] bishop (!) in 1963 and again in 1966, 1967 (twice), 1969, 1973 and 1979). "BERTIAUX, Michael (Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo IV) 18.1.1935- Mentioned in "Cults of the Shadow" by Kenneth Grant [Muller, London, 1976]. A circular issued from M.S.R., Apartado 6559 C.C.I., Quito, Ecuador, dated December 28, 1984, e.v. [era vulgaris] contains the following: Dear Fellow O.T.O. Members and Allied Thelemites, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Greetings of the Winter Solstice! ..... To become a member of the O.T.O.A. it is necessary to be a student of the M.S.R. or a chela of the Master Michael Bertiaux ..... Love is the Law, love under will. Yours fraternally ..... Tau Baphomet ..... S.G.M. in the O.T.O.A. Students of occultism will recognise the familiar terminology of the late Aleister Crowley, self-declared "Beast 666" of the Apocalypse, notorious for his sex-magic practices on the island of Corfu. Not quite the done thing for a bishop of the Church .... (Consecrator of: BARBER; DE BRION; HOGG; SHREVES)." Not a lot of people know that :-) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 21 23:15:07 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:15:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Skandhas & Self-Awareness In-Reply-To: <960821211329_76400.1474_HHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960821211329_76400.1474_HHL71-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >Taoist Yoga >includes techniques for the circulation of chi/prana to form a subtle >body (Golden Flower) that will transcend physical death. Without >this self-awareness, they maintain that reincarnation is impossible. >I don't know how Theosophy would perceive this idea though. > > Jerry S. > Member, TI In ~The Secret of the Golden Flower~ (Wilhelm & Jung, I think) there is a diagram of a mini-buddha "hovering" around the sahasrarsa chakra, and from this one another seven (?) connect. [I no longer have a copy, but remember trying to look down my nose at myself]. I have experienced the single "hovering" state, but not the others. This is a level of awareness [short!] which is truly astounding, but which has no "vision" in the usual sense, ie, no images to the mind. Yet I was aware of everone else in the room (about 50 of us) extremely vividly. I guess this was the "I" of "I am I" in an earlier post. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 21 14:58:34 1996 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:58:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Consciousness In-Reply-To: <199608210057.TAA29196@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608210057.TAA29196@main.com>, "Paul M.M. Kieniewicz" writes >Many Eastern religions speak of transcending the "ego". >Sure, it can be done - but then once the ego is transcended, is there any >consciousness left? > >3. Theosophists also speak of consciousness often as seperate from the body. >Is this again relevant? Or are we to accept the idea of a disembodied "ego"? > >Paul M.M.K. > It all depends on one's definition of "ego." The Jungian definition is, I suspect, different from the theosophical or the Tibetan, etc. He defines "ego" as a complex (or constellation) within the personal unconscious. "Self" is something deeper and connects with the collective unconscious. In Jungian terms therefore, a disembodied ego is a no no. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 21 23:52:26 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:52:26 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Welcome Mime-Version: 1.0 THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL Welcomes Keith Idell! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Wed Aug 21 20:38:13 1996 Date: 21 Aug 96 16:38:13 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Nuclei - Clones of Elitist Brotherhood? Message-Id: <960821203813_72723.2375_FHP60-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >Very appropriate comment. I think this is my individual karma and I would >suggest it is shared with many of those with pluto in Leo (baby boomers). We >have a deep need from past lives to express ourselves at all cost in perhaps a >self-important "royal" manner with little concern for the people we are >suppposedly trying to reach. I'm getting a little tired of the boomers being ragged on. Consider the generations before the boomers - they had WW I & II, the Depression, the oppression of women and various racial groups. I don't think the boomers are any better or worse than any large group incarnating at a particular time in history. In fact, by saying so, one is fulfilling the boomers supposed "need" to be special and stand out in a crowd. Stand out? Heck, we ARE the crowd! Who are the people we are trying to reach? Why are we trying to reach them and what for? > One astrologer has suggested that Pluto in Leo >suggests that those of us with this plane strong in our chart in this sign were >incarnated together during the Age of Leo (in the precession of the equinoxes >system). We had an Atlantis type mentality of using power for selfish ends >without acknowledging to ourselves where it can from (the Divivne Sun through >crystals etc) or where it was going and who it was affecting leading to the myth >of the submersion of Atlantis due to "black magic". (That ole black magic has me in a spell . . . ) Excuse me. I believe the Age of Leo extended to the Egyptian empire as well, meaning that the First Ray was the order of the day. I agree that probably many former Atlanteans have come back again to see if they can get it right this time. Cayce had quite a bit to say about that. Any kind of power, whether it be magical, technological, monetary or just plain vanilla physical is hard to resist not using for one's own end. One can also convince oneself that one's vision of the universe is the right one for mankind. Then its full speed ahead - let's make sure everybody share the vision or gets hung from the rafters. Power is a terrific temptation. >Thus our goal is supposedly to overcome selfishness and direct current >technology to the creation of a New World Order of peace, prosperity and group >experiences of spirituality on a global scale through computers perhaps thus >ushering in the Age of Aquarius. Hmm. Sounds good to me and also sounds a bit like TI. > The Group Planetary energy would be controlled, acknowledged and directed by a connection >of the GROUP to the DIVINE PURPOSE. It gets even better! >The voice is a spiritual voice beyond the individual or cultural subconsious and >seeks to connect with the spiritual plan for the path our planet and the next >stage of humanity as trully a practical and spiritual brotherhood. Big perhaps!! >Bailey seem to really run with the idea of the WORLD TEACHER as not a person or >Avatar type incarnation, but a WORLD ENSOULMENT through meditation and psychic >linking, perhaps. That's my favorite interpretation. Rather than billions of people following and adoring one individual and looking up to that person for enlightenment and answers, they would looking inside themselves and cooperating as a group. Acording to Bailey's "The Rays and The Initiations", millions will have taken the first initiation by the year 2025, which would mean large groups of inidividuals in whom "the Christ was born in their hearts." Now it would be their job to manifest it and minimize astral glamour on the planet, by clearing it from themselves. Maybe Krishnamurti saw something when he refused the mantle of world teacher, seeing that it would have hindered rather than helped. -Ann E. Bermingham From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 21 23:35:58 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:35:58 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: <$hqrhOAe15GyEw0J@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Nuclei - Clones of Elitist Brotherhood? In-Reply-To: <960821203813_72723.2375_FHP60-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960821203813_72723.2375_FHP60-1@CompuServe.COM>, "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes >Keith: >>Very appropriate comment. I think this is my individual karma and I would >>suggest it is shared with many of those with pluto in Leo (baby boomers). We >>have a deep need from past lives to express ourselves at all cost in perhaps a >>self-important "royal" manner with little concern for the people we are >>suppposedly trying to reach. >>>snip<<< > >> One astrologer has suggested that Pluto in Leo >>suggests that those of us with this plane strong in our chart in this sign were >>incarnated together during the Age of Leo (in the precession of the equinoxes >>system). We had an Atlantis type mentality of using power for selfish ends >>>more snip<<< > >>Thus our goal is supposedly to overcome selfishness and direct current >>technology to the creation of a New World Order of peace, prosperity and group >>experiences of spirituality on a global scale through computers perhaps thus >>ushering in the Age of Aquarius. > >Hmm. Sounds good to me and also sounds a bit like TI. I got Pluto in Cancer - does that mean I don't qualify? [sob] > >> The Group Planetary energy would be controlled, acknowledged and directed by a >connection >of the GROUP to the DIVINE PURPOSE. > > It gets even better! > >>The voice is a spiritual voice beyond the individual or cultural subconsious Indeed it does! >>>Ye further snippe<<< > >That's my favorite interpretation. Rather than billions of people following and >adoring one individual and looking up to that person for enlightenment and >answers, I get so fed up with being adored by the millions, don't you? :-))) >minimize astral glamour on the planet, by clearing >it from themselves. I'm all for that! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 22 04:48:18 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:48:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960822004817_265745510@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Reply to Chuck Jerry, Oh yes, Mike is most definitely in the TS. He was even on the Olcott staff at one time back in the mid 60's. I'm not sure why I got the singular honor, but I was extremely flattered. Maybe it was calling the Virgin Mary a big thoughtform that got to him. By the way, what did you think of the article on John Dee sabotaging the future in Gnosis a couple of months back? Could it be that YOU are the real agent of the Anti-Christ (lucky devil!)? :-) :-) Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 22 04:49:18 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:49:18 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960822004918_265746194@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Eno Mag Jerry, My typos are NEVER Freudian. Good Theosophists are all Jungians. :-) Chuck the Heretic From jmeier@microfone.net Thu Aug 22 06:11:08 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 06:11:08 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199608221011.AA02011@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Pilgrim/Pilgramage (Jerry S.) Hi, Jerry -- > Richard, I just scanned THE PILGRIM >AND THE PILGRAMAGE by Emily B. Sellon (given to me >free in the mail this morning). She says a lot of what I >have been saying. In fact, I was hard pressed to find >anything in her little book that I would disagree with. I found something you disagree with -- the definition in the glossary of "etheric". As a follow-up to our short thread of a month or so ago, I've been having some interesting private exchanges with some ULT students on the subject, based upon the 1995 Farthing pamphlet, THE ETHERIC DOUBLE? THE FAR-REACING EFFECTS OF A FALSE ASSUMPTION. Maybe there'll be something worth summarizing on theos-l after we're all done. Jim From RIhle@aol.com Thu Aug 22 17:12:06 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 13:12:06 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960822131206_463000540@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: The Pilgrim & The Pilgramage Jerry S. writes> > Richard, I just scanned THE PILGRIM >AND THE PILGRAMAGE by Emily B. Sellon (given to me >free in the mail this morning). She says a lot of what I >have been saying. In fact, I was hard pressed to find >anything in her little book that I would disagree with. Her >viewpoint of fohat, for example, is exactly how I define it >in my ENOCHIAN PHYSICS in 1988. Wish I had >met her. Richard Ihle writes> I did not know Emily Sellon well, but I had met her a few times, disagreed with her occasionally, but in the end considered her to be a kindred theosophist. This is one of Theosophy's ironies, however, isn't it?--that of the very few people in this wide world who are most like oneself because they are theosophists, those are often the exact people whom one sometimes feels a curious "estrangement" from until they are gone . . . and then we realize that this--in a very deep and significant way--~really was~ another version of oneself who just left the scene. . . . In the company of our conventional friends, family, co-workers etc. we may sometimes feel much more at ease and "normal": with them we may often more easily relax into a comfortable day-to-day life. Tell me honestly: is there anyone on theos-l whom, if they lived in your neighborhood, you would be inclined to "hang-out" with? Personally, I don't gravitate socially toward ~any~ fully out-of-the-closet magicians, shamans, yogis, theosophical scholars, astrologers, philosophers, etc.--even though I might be some of these things myself. No, give me any day the theosophically innocent to rub elbows with in the work-and-play-world. Let me just make occasional and special "pilgrimages" to see the ~overtly~ deep and overly complex "pilgrims" if and when I feel up to it. Still . . . it is interesting, isn't it? When one's more common compadres pass over, one is very sad, but there may sometimes be the realization, "I loved this person, but it must be admitted that he or she was not really after the same thing I am in life." Conversely, when Emily Sellon, whom I scarcely knew at all, leaves us, I find myself thinking that it was unfortunate that I didn't make more pilgrimages to see someone who was undoubtedly pursuing the ~exact-same~ Theosophical Verity as I am. Despite myself, I am sure I am going to feel this way about the entire Theosophical "Cast of Characters" I can manage to survive: Joy, Dora, Radha, John--who knows, maybe even Chuck and Alexis. . . . Wait a minute . . . let me throw some cold water on my face. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 22 17:17:25 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 13:17:25 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960822131725_507542931@emout15.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Reply to Chuck Alan, In the Chicago area Michael Bertiaux is a super biggie among gnostics. My own line of succession is through him. And the stuff he is into is actually quite the done thing for gnostics in this part of the world. Of course his work with the Qlipoth has been known to raise even my hairs on occasion, which may explain why I can never quite remember how to spell his name. Chuck the Heretic From euser@euronet.nl Thu Aug 22 19:08:11 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:08:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608221908.VAA22843@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: authorial reluctance (reply to Kim) Kim wrote: > It takes me a very long time too, but here follows the transliteration of line 1: AdibuddhaH prak.Rityaiva sarve dharmAH sunishchitAH | When I feel like doing it I will try to deduce this transliteration- I don't like to break my brain on the sandhi grids right now :) Kim> I am working on a translation of this (much larger piece) and will correlate with certain mahatma letters which treats of these principles. Are you planning to write an article for the Danish Theosophical Society or what? Kim>But anyone can check my translations in the dictionary The problem is more in the interpretation than in the translation, I think, although one interprets also when one translates of course. Kim> Svabhavat will generally be found as self-existence, own-being, luminous existence or something similar. Blavatsky translates it as Father-Mother. De Purucker remarks that it is a condition or state of Cosmic consciousness-substance where spirit and matter are one, non-dual. The reservoir of being, life, consciousness and light and the source of the forces of nature. He says that the Nothern Budhists call it Adi-Buddhi and that the Brahmanic scriptures call it Akasa. The Hebrew Old Testament refers to it as the Cosmic Waters. What do you think? Kim> In fact mistranslations is also the cause of this passive philosophy. The proper translation of the 3 ancient paths of the B.G is Is the following your own translation and interpretation? a) Sa.nkhya, literally numerology - esoteric study, indian kabbalah as Alan might put it. Their (the esoteric students) real philosophy is hinted at by Vyasa, they start with an immutable principle, etc. The commonly known sutras are only semi-esoteric and are not worth much. Do you mean you know less known sutras? b) service, improvement of personal karma - insufficient for liberation But an essential ingredient, I think. c) Yoga - whose goal is samadhi, literally union "with the logos" as Subba Row puts it. That leaves aramba, or science, Nyaya and Vaiseshika, out of the picture. What is your opinion on the six Schools of Wisdom (Shad Darsana)? I'm especially interested in your opinion of Yoga as a School of Wisdom. That includes the four types of Yoga commonly known, I suppose? Kim>To travel on more than one path, would just as today be possible, if not necessary. So being merely a theosophist or Advaita Vedantin has never constituted a path. Even a swami will have to exercise one of these to move anywhere in the right direction. So, you're saying that a theosophist has to practice Karma Yoga, Raja Yoga, etc. in order to get moving along the Path (as a process)? In friendship, Kim In friendship, Martin From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Thu Aug 22 23:05:51 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 19:05:51 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608222305.TAA23459@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Cayce interview Still glowing with enthusiasm, I'm just back from a trip to Virginia Beach to interview Edgar Cayce Foundation President, Charles Thomas Cayce, for the first time. Months ago some Theosophists speculated that the A.R.E., Cayce Foundation etc. would prove to be no more receptive to my kind of historical investigations than the Theosophical organizations were. So I'm happy to report that for more than two hours, Dr. Cayce consistently made it clear that: he thinks critical, objective analysis of the readings and A.R.E. history is much needed and in fact overdue; that present conditions are good for a real flowering of scholarship related to Cayce; that he and the Foundation are ready to assist any scholar or writer attempting serious work on Cayce, regardless of his or her affiliation or perceived level of skepticism; that the entire leadership of the movement shares this openness to critical scholarship... In short, I was made to feel fully, unambiguously welcome in a way that makes up for some wounds of the past. And left feeling a great optimism about the future of Cayce scholarship and of the movement itself. From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 01:24:23 1996 Date: 22 Aug 96 21:24:23 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Path & the Pilgrimage Message-Id: <960823012423_72723.2375_FHP67-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard: >In the company of our conventional friends, family, co-workers etc. we may >sometimes feel much more at ease and "normal": with them we may often more >easily relax into a comfortable day-to-day life. Tell me honestly: is there >anyone on theos-l whom, if they lived in your neighborhood, you would be >inclined to "hang-out" with? Dr. Bain, Keith Price and Jerry Schueler, to name a few. I already live in the same general "neighborhood" as Dr. Psionic, having bumped into him several times at Olcott. I've never felt that comfortable with my blood relations. I was in the Olcott basement once, enjoying some after-event refreshments, when I told my husband that I felt more comfortable with those theosophists than I did with regular people. I didn't feel strange with them because I knew they had probably had experiences like I had had. > Personally, I don't gravitate socially toward >~any~ fully out-of-the-closet magicians, shamans, yogis, theosophical >scholars, astrologers, philosophers, etc.--even though I might be some of >these things myself. Been looking for them all my life - and found them! - Ann E. Bermingham From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 01:12:41 1996 Date: 22 Aug 96 21:12:41 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Nuclei - Clones of Elitist Brotherhood? Message-Id: <960823011241_72723.2375_FHP77-1@CompuServe.COM> Alan: >I got Pluto in Cancer - does that mean I don't qualify? [sob] Your Sun conjuncts your Venus, so you're invited. -Ann E. Bermingham From trankusek@earthlink.net Fri Aug 23 10:08:31 1996 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 02:08:31 -0800 From: ArtHouse Message-Id: <321D831F.7C36@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Help! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Whoa!, I apologize for the mile of gibberish! I am trying to post a few gif images to the list. Is that possible? I tried to simply attach them to an email letter and, well, you see what happened. Any advice? Mark From apriorip@earthlink.net Fri Aug 23 15:54:08 1996 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:54:08 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <321DD41C.3C04@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Psychosophy (Esoteric Psychology) (www pages text) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I've recently found out that some of our friends around the world do not yet have web browsers, so I thought to post the text of some of our www pages (complimentary services and programs) to theos-l. Namaste, P --------- Psychosophy Home Page Introduction to Psychosophy Health & Healing Education & Parenting Astrosophy - The Cycles of Life (esoteric astrochemistry) Readings, Thesis, Course, Journal, Program, Council Psychosophy Charts Images from the Prime Radiant Writings in Psychosophy Vol. I A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA Compuserve Address: 72203,3461 / America OnLine: aprioripa Email: aprioripa@aol.com Psychosophy / Esoteric / Transpersonal / Psychology & Education / Astrochemistry ---------- PSYCHOSOPHY - Esoteric Psychology The word psychosophy comes from the word psyche, which means soul, and the word sophia, which means wisdom.=20 Psychosophy is one of the flow of seven areas and ten fields. Over the last one hundred years marvelous progress has been made by the science of psychology in the understanding of human nature and in applying this understanding to the helping of human beings. Psychosophy embraces this scientific progress and includes the path of personal and group spiritual development with the science of psychology.=20 The general study time for the psychosophy reading and study program is several years. A correspondence course as a supplement to this reading list is being developed and co-workers are invited to write in with questions, comments and suggestions. Students of psychosophy who have sufficiently progressed in the reading study program may work as consultants of psychosophy in their chosen field. Compilations, charts and diagrams from the psychosophy books and a practical psychosophy computer system are available to students of psychosophy via a qualifying thesis proposal and project.=20 Upon completion of the thesis project and its acceptance in final form by a Speakers Council or First Speaker a student receives the degree title of Counsel of Psychosophy and is invited to participate in the Psychosophy Council. Psychosophical writings may be sent to the Journal of Psychosophy for review and publication. Psychosophy includes psychology in its tenets and is an aspect of theosophy and esoteric philosophy. The three general areas of psychosophy are typosophy (relating to psychological types), motion (relating to movement through space) and evolution (relating to processes of development). These areas are described in the esoteric books listed below. Psychosophy training includes the development of skills in philosophy, mathematics and education (as well as general abilities in a variety of areas). This includes scientific and mathematical skills on par with those credentialed by the world's recognized academic institutions. The practice of psychosophy in service to the common good relates to all areas of human activity and psychosophy can be applied by any qualified individual to his area of work and service. Suggested reading list and study program in Psychosophy: Read and study these books for general concepts and scientific ideas (books of equivalent content may be substituted for those listed here): Islands of Truth: A Mathematical Mystery Cruise by Ivars Peterson. The Divine Proportion: A Study in Mathematical Beauty by H.E. Huntley. Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory by J .R. Reitz, F. J. Milford and R. W. Christy. Psychometric Theory by J. C. Nunnally. The Federalist Papers by James Madison et al. Synergetics I and II by R. Buckminster Fuller. Basic texts on the following subjects: calculus; set theory; music technique and theory; statistical methods and multivariate analysis; human languages; beauty in art; general psychology and sociology; Fourier methods; astronomy and cosmology. (note: excellent sources for information are the readings available at a local university book store that are listed for graduate science, mathematics, psychology, education and music courses and it is recommended that the student of psychosophy enroll in several such courses).=20 Read and study these books thoroughly (note: these books should be lightly read cover to cover at least twice before beginning intensive work with this material): A Treatise on the Seven Rays Vol's I,II,III by Alice A. Bailey. ( see An Introduction to Esoteric Psychology and The Path of Transformation ) The Secret Doctrine Vol. II: Anthropogenesis by H.P. Blavatsky. Books for general reading and reference: The writings of Alice A. Bailey, H.P. Blavatsky and other works of theosophy and esoteric philosophy. Patrick Alessandra A.Priori 6524 San Felipe #323 Houston, TX 77057 USA Email: aprioripa@aol.com Psychosophy Correspondence Course The field of psychosophy includes three areas which describe the qualities, development and natural cycles of evolution. Astrosophy describes the many different areas of our awareness, consciousness, and the detailed happennings and experiences. These are holistically integrated with and a synthetic expression of the rays, centers and many personal and spiritual influences which make us who we are. Our bodies are expressions of rays and centers which are in turn expressions of our higher consciousness. The various psychological types (rays) for people and groups, places on the path of spiritual evolution (centers) and the detailed experiential interaction of all of these over time (astrosophy) provides the complete picture of human beings, their many civilizations and cultures, and broader planetary and celestial relations. An Introduction to Esoteric Psychology The Path of Transformation (Personal & Spiritual) Holistic Education Thesis Proposal & Project Proposal for an original philosophical, research or theoretical contribution to the field of psychosophy. Equivalent of two conventional masters thesis. Standard American Psychological Society format. Review and approval by First Speaker or a Speakers Council. The Prime Radiant Esoteric psychology information system (assessment, rays, signs, symbols, flow, research, ...) Images from The Prime Radiant Journal of Psychosophy Published by A.Priori (Houston, Texas). Articles on all areas of psychosophy. Send all submissions (in APS document format) by normal post to the address below or by email to A.Priori. Subscriptions available to institutions and individuals. Information available by email. Counsel of Psychosophy Degree title for students qualifying in the professional practice of psychosophy. Counsels are invited to become a member of the Psychosophy Council and may use the psychosophy emblem. Psychosophy Council Counsels and Speakers of Psychosophy. Consultants, Counsels and Speakers Congress. Patrick Alessandra A.Priori 6524 San Felipe #323 Houston, TX 77057 USA Email: aprioripa@aol.com WWW: http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html Psychosophy Main The Esoteric Arts & Sciences (on the world wide web) ----------- An Introduction to Esoteric Psychology Esoteric psychology is a way to understand the relationships among ourselves based upon spiritual ideas and values. This psychology assumes that we are all Souls in consciousness and are evolving as personalities. Esoteric psychology explains the different types of souls and personalities and the times and seasons (natural cycles) of individual and group evolution. This comes from an understanding of ourselves as souls (will,love/wisdom and intelligence) and personalities (mental, emotional and physical) and is based upon holistic philosophy writings using the seven types (rays) and seasonal celestial cycles.*=20 Psychology (Human Nature) Natural Cycles (Gif 22k) Soul Evolution (Gif 22k) Auras & Energies Esoteric Psychology Charts - complimentary service (available for adults, teenagers and parents & children) These charts with interpretations are a description of personal and esoteric energies that provide opportunities for growth and service. The chart and interpretation are to help one understand and live life from a spiritual perspective. Included is the general chart with main interpretation and the esoteric psychology profile questionnaire which you can fill out and mail to us. To order the complimentary chart (two pages) please fill out the information below for each individual, print and mail this form by normal post to A.Priori at the address below. ___________________________________________________________ Organization ___________________________________________________________ Name ___________________________________________________________ Mailing Address __________________________________________=20 Email address: ________________________ (________________) (Phone No. ) (optional - in case we have a question about your information) ______________________________________ Full Birth Name _______________________________________ Birth Date _______________________________________ Birth Time (specify AM or PM) _______________________________________ Birth Location(city, state, nation) _______________________________________ Please send by normal post to: A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA / (713) 622-9031 A.Priori is a goodwill service educational organization. Patrick Alessandra Psychosophy A.Priori 6524 San Felipe #323 Houston, TX 77057 USA Compuserve Address: 72203,3461 America OnLine: aprioripa Email: aprioripa@aol.com WWW: http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/esopsych.html * The writings of H.P. Blavatsky, A. Bailey, and other theosophical works. ---------- PSYCHOSOPHY - Health and Healing "The entire subject of healing is as old as the ages themselves, and has ever been the subject of investigation and experiment." (Esoteric Healing, 1). "When one enters the realm of healing, one enters a world of much esoteric knowledge, and of an infinity of conclusions..." (Esoteric Healing, 1). "Our health is determined by the qualities that we include in our life. The food we eat, the emotions we feel and the thoughts we think all go to make up the energy of our body and personality." "Eating good food (such as fresh fruits and vegetables), feeling good emotions (such as appreciating beauty), and thinking positive thoughts all increase our health, energy and vitality. Going for walks in nature is another way of improving our energy. Right prayer and meditation are also very beneficial." (From the book "Seeing Auras") Herbs & Health There are several herbs and teas that are considered helpful for all people. These include chamomille, ginseng, valerion, alfalfa, mint and (for women) wild red raspberry. There are also herbs that are most helpful for those of a certain ray or sign as determined from the esoteric psychology chart. A complete catalog is being developed and general information is available by email for those who have received the charts. The Seven Methods of Healing Use of medicines from herbs & minerals belonging to the same ray as the patient.=20 Learn thoroughly the temperament of the patient as well as to be thoroughly conversant with the nature of the disease, so as to use will power on the case to the best advantage.=20 Massage and magnetism used with knowledge.=20 Surgery and electricity.=20 Draw health and strength from the great fount of universal life by will power, and then pour it through the patient (if esoterically knowledgeable). Faith and Prayer.=20 Extreme exactness in carrying out orthodox treatment of disease. Esoteric Psychology Charts & Healing The natural cycles, rays and signs which qualify life's experiences and our personalities, consciousnesses and health are seen in the psychosophy chart. Different areas of health are governed by different qualities and psychosophy chart consultations (in diagnosis and healing) for health care professionals and their clients are available from A.Priori. An Introduction to Esoteric Psychology Psychosophy Main Patrick Alessandra A.Priori 6524 San Felipe #323 Houston, TX 77057 USA (713) 622-9031 Compuserve Address: 72203,3461 America OnLine: aprioripa Email: aprioripa@aol.com ------------------ Esoteric Astrology Esoteric astrology is about the relationship of the soul to the personality, of the evolving consciousness and the ways of experience. A variety of rulerships for the signs with the seven rays are used in the understanding of these ideas. Articles, illustrations, research and discussions are welcome. Articles and Illustrations (ftp site) Signs of Nations - International Astrology Psychosophy Esoteric Astrology Charts Esoteric key words for each of the twelve signs. * Aries - "I come forth, and from the plane of mind I rule." * Taurus - "I see, and when the eye is opened, all is illumined." * Gemini - "I recognize my other self, and in the waning of that self, I grow and glow." * Cancer - "I build a lighted house and therein dwell." * Leo - "I am That and That am I." * Virgo - "I am the Mother and the Child. I God, I Matter am." * Libra - "I choose the way which leads between the two great lines of force." * Scorpio - "Warrior am I, and from the battle I emerge triumphant." * Sagittarius - "I see the goal. I reach that goal and see another." * Capricorn - "Lost am I in light supernal, yet on that light I turn my back." * Aquarius - "Water of Life am I, poured forth for thirsty men." * Pisces - "I leave the Father's Home, and turning back I save." Esoteric Astrology Charts Esoteric astrology and psychology are based upon metaphysical and theosophical writings and philosophy.* These charts with interpretations are a description of personal and esoteric quaklities that provide opportunities for growth and service. The chart and interpretation are to help one understand and live life from a spiritual perspective. Please check one (see descriptions below): * ___ Chart, main interpretation, Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 ($10.00). * ___ Chart, main interpretation, Chapters 1, 2, 3, with month by month description of key dates, key energies and numerology ($20.00). * ___ Chart & Full (all chapters, etc.) Interpretation ($45.00). (for astrologers and students of esoteric astrology). * ___ Chart with main interpretation (two pages) (complimentary). The esoteric chart interpretation has these chapters: * The circumstances and opportunity of life. * Past energies and influences. * The future and the best possibilities for fulfilling true goals. * The best days of the year to understand important aspects of the personal self and spiritual opportunities. * Significant influences effecting the future and group service. * An astrosophical description of personal and spiritual opportunities as related to various areas of individual life. * The influences which qualify spiritual destiny (abstract phrases). * Esoteric abilities which can be used to overcome personal limitations (abstract phrases). * How inner realizations can express themselves in an outer life of service (abstract phrases). * A summary (main interpretation) of key ideas from the interpretation and numerology interpretations. * Also included is a twelve paper set month by month description of key dates and key energies and the esoteric psychology profile questionnaire. Charts use the standard tropical zodiac and even house system. To chart order form. "Your major life opportunity is one of DUALITY&UNITY in Spirit and around June 16 is the best time each year for you to increase your understanding of this opportunity." "Your future destiny is one of ROYALTY in Spirit and around July 30 is the best time each year for you to improve your vision of this future." "Your life of group service and relationships is influenced by DESIRE&WILL POWER in Matter and DUALITY&UNITY in Spirit and around April 30 is the best time each year for you to strive toward this service through better relationships." "The key ideas for your present life are: Duality. Love-Wisdom. Fluidity. Control of every pair of opposites. The underlying love of Deity reaches our solar system through Gemini. Reveals duality. Brings the power of discrimination and the ability to choose rightly." Ray influences:=20 Love&Wisdom Spiritual key word: I recognize my other self and in the waning of that self I grow and glow. Material key word: And the Word said: Let instability do its work. Keynote: Gemini moves toward Libra Emphasis: DUALITY&UNITY Light: The Light of Interplay "Polarity of Spirit related to the processes of Form of Manifestation and Buddhi-Intuition." All text from the book Esoteric Astrology is Copyright =A9 1995. Esoteric Psychology Charts. Please select which chart interpretation you would like and mail this form to us at address. Birth Day (MM/DD/YY): Full Birth Name (First, Middle, Last): Birth Time (please specify AM or PM): Birth Place (city, state, nation): - Your Name: Organization: Mailing Address: Email Address: Phone No.:=20 (optional=20 - in case we have a question about your birth information) Please choose one (see descriptions above): * ___ Chart, main interpretation, Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 ($10.00). * ___ Chart, main interpretation, Chapters 1, 2, 3, with month by month description of key dates, key qualities and numerology ($20.00). * ___ Chart & Full (all chapters, etc.) Interpretation ($45.00). (for consultants and students of esoteric psychology). * ___ Chart with main interpretation (two pages) (complimentary). The esoteric psychology profile questionnaire is included complimentary. Please send by normal post to: A.Priori 6524 San Felipe #323 Houston, TX 77057 USA A.Priori is a goodwill service educational organization. To chart order form. Main Menu Patrick Alessandra A.Priori 6524 San Felipe #323 Houston, TX 77057 USA Compuserve Address: 72203,3461 America OnLine: aprioripa Phone: (713) 622-9031 Email: aprioripa@aol.com * The writings of H.P. Blavatsky, A. Bailey, and other theosophical works. Many theosophical writers have written books on the subject and the book generally considered as the main reference for these ideas is "Esoteric Astrology" by Alice Bailey.=20 --=20 *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA=20 *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 23 19:03:41 1996 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:03:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960823150338_463916846@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Cayce interview Paul, Wonderful. It seems that C.T. is one hell of a lot better to deal with than Hugh Lynn was. Good for them! Chuck the Heretic From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat Aug 24 02:24:43 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 00:24:43 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB9157.032A32A0@ppp36.dk-online.dk> Subject: Re: authorial reluctance (reply to Kim) Encoding: 134 TEXT .............. >Are you planning to write an article for the Danish Theosophical >Society or what? Actually a book in english. But it is still in the material collecting phase. I'm working at present mostly on an exact vocabulary, so to speak, based on terms in HPB's works and the mahatma letters. The preliminary work is very promising but extremely time consuming (it involves translitering key text to conduct word searches). Kim>But anyone can check my translations in the dictionary > The problem is more in the interpretation than in the translation, >I think, although one interprets also when one translates of course. A theosophist needs in fact to interpret less than anybody else (having a large metaphysical vocabulary). The common problem of translators is that they feel the need to make everything immediately understandable.What one needs is the skill to translate a term (when direct translation is of little use) into the correct principle. And here Shankara comes in, he commentated on many important texts and his style of writing is often a "translation" of principles between varying terminologies. Kim> Svabhavat >>will generally be found as self-existence, own-being, luminous existence or >>something similar. > Blavatsky translates it as Father-Mother. > De Purucker remarks that it is a condition or state of Cosmic > consciousness-substance where spirit and matter are one, non-dual. > The reservoir of being, life, consciousness and light and the source > of the forces of nature. He says that the Nothern Budhists call it > Adi-Buddhi and that the Brahmanic scriptures call it Akasa. > The Hebrew Old Testament refers to it as the Cosmic Waters. > What do you think? I think that father-mother is another term occuring with svabhavat in the original stanzas rather than a translation (that is - a description). And I think that Purucker either confounds a number of principles here *or* uses a characteristic eastern identification (like "Atman is prana"), where "X manifests as Y on this plane" is ment, a longer and more complex equation than the expected X=Y. Purucker may be working from certain mahatma letters (11 and others). While the akasha is the first universal principle, svabhavat is the seventh. This is a very long story and I do not have the time to delve into it now. > Is the following your own translation and interpretation? Yes, translation and summary of the really ancient schools as portrayed in the Mahabharata. Interpretation - all translations of sanskrit are really interpretations, but mine stay close to the text, at least. I like almost literal translation - like adhyaatma (adhi+aatma) for over-soul. The term occurs thousands of times in ancient literature, but has only once or twice been translated as such (fx Franklin Edgerton's Gita translation). >>a) Sa.nkhya, literally numerology - esoteric study, indian kabbalah as Alan >>might put it. Their (the esoteric students) real philosophy is hinted at by >>Vyasa, they start with an immutable principle, etc. The commonly known >>sutras are only semi-esoteric and are not worth much. >Do you mean you know less known sutras? Not necessarily less known, but what I believe to be a real description of the philosophy is found in the shukaanuprashnaH in the Mokshadharma parva of the Mahabharata. It makes it clear (with the shorter remarks in Bhagavad Gita) that there existed 2 schools - the sa.nkhya and the yogins. The 3 parvas Bhagavad gita, Anugita and mokshadharma are of the highest quality, and this fact alone makes me trust them to a high degree. The wellknown sa.nkhya kaarikaa is (as Subba Row says) merely a treatise on some elemental combinations - but of course the esoteric mathematics employed in it is still unknown: sa.nkhya kaarikaa literaly means "A Treatise on Numerology". >>b) service, improvement of personal karma - insufficient for liberation > But an essential ingredient, I think. Of course, but it cannot do it alone. I was merely resuming the position of the B.G here as a parallel to the modern triplicity study, meditation, service. In fact only understanding has ever been described as a mean of liberation - but of course it can be pursued by study or meditation (or rather both). Interestingly the yogins had a system of philosophy (far beyond the human character) and the sa.nkhyas would certainly have used meditation. >>c) Yoga - whose goal is samadhi, literally union "with the logos" as Subba >>Row puts it. > That leaves aramba, or science, Nyaya and Vaiseshika, out of the >picture. What is your opinion on the six Schools of Wisdom (Shad Darsana)? >I'm especially interested in your opinion of Yoga as a School of Wisdom. >That includes the four types of Yoga commonly known, I suppose? This Mahabharatean period comes before the alleged sutra period and you will have found several of these later schools portraying only a limited perspective of esoteric philosophy. In this case, I think, yogins only describe a not too homogeneous group, including authors like Patanjali - and relying more on meditation and self-analysis than books for their source of information. The sa.nkhyas relied heavily on metaphysics, and apparently esoteric mathematics. Within these broader *esoteric* groups (far more important than any philosophical school) the best schools (like the rajah yogins) would be found - I think. This is my merely conjectural impression based primarily on the descriptions within the Mahabharata. >> To travel on more than one path, would just as today be possible, if not >>necessary. So being merely a theosophist or Advaita Vedantin has never >>constituted a path. Even a swami will have to exercise one of these to move >>anywhere in the right direction. > So, you're saying that a theosophist has to practice Karma Yoga, >Raja Yoga, etc. in order to get moving along the Path (as a process)? Of course, only esoteric study, meditation and service will do as a description. My point here is the striking similarity between the most ancient ideas on these subjects and the modern. Understanding is a process of course, and a long one in spiritual matters. In friendship, Kim From C.Carli@agora.stm.it Sat Aug 24 01:22:13 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 1:22:13 GMT From: C.Carli@agora.stm.it Message-Id: <199608240124.BAA13145@agora.stm.it> Subject: t.fr, theos-l@vnet.net ATTENZIONE !!! ESONET ha attivato una mailing-list allo scopo di mettere a disposizione di tutti gli interessati gli scritti preparati da un gruppo di studiosi membri di una scuola di ricercatori d'esoterismo, che da qualche tempo divulga i propri articoli attraverso la nostra rete. Iscrivendovi alla mailing-list riceverete gli scritti direttamente nella vostra mail-box. Tale servizio, come e' abitudine di ESONET, e' assolutamente gratuito ed esente da qualsiasi impegno. Per iscrivervi alla mailing-list inviate semplicemente un messaggio a Eso.Net@agora.stm.it oppure riempite la scheda che potete trovare alla pagina web di Esonet: http://www.agora.stm.it/esonet/iscriz.htm Alla mail-box di Esonet potrete poi inviare le vostre domande relative agli argomenti trattati negli articoli che riceverete; a tutte le domande che rivestano interesse generale e che stimolino ulteriori approfondimenti dei temi esaminati sara' data pubblica risposta congiuntamente alla spedizione dei successivi articoli. I membri della scuola si occupano da tempo di divulgare gli insegnamenti relativi al corpo di Commentari trasmessi dai Maestri della Fratellanza Bianca o Gerarchia (tra i quali M., K.H., R., D.K., H., G. e S.B.), congiuntamente alle altre opere elaborate da H. P. Blavatsky, H. e N. Roerich, A. A. Bailey, F. La Due, M. Collins e ai testi di altri autori in cui sono riconoscibili i valori iniziatici, mistici e spirituali che costituiscono la Tradizione iniziatica ed esoterica. Gli insegnamenti, cosi' come intesi e diffusi dalla scuola, sono "operativi", cioe' di pratico ed immediato aiuto sia per l'aspirante che intenda porre i piedi sul sentiero dell'autosviluppo e della conoscenza, sia per colui che, gia' orientato sulla stessa via, voglia percorrerla con maggiore determinazione e consapevolezza. Tutti gli articoli preparati restano comunque sempre disponibili nella rete EsoNet i cui accessi sono riportati nella nostra pagina web. Nella stessa pagina potrete altresi' trovare i primi articoli che i membri della scuola hanno diffuso su EsoNet. Cordiali saluti From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 23:27:19 1996 Date: 23 Aug 96 19:27:19 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Pilgrim & Pilgramage Message-Id: <960823232719_76400.1474_HHL65-1@CompuServe.COM> Richard, Well said. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 23:27:29 1996 Date: 23 Aug 96 19:27:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Gnosis Magazine Message-Id: <960823232728_76400.1474_HHL65-5@CompuServe.COM> >By the way, what did you think of the article on John Dee sabotaging the >future in Gnosis a couple of months back? Chuck, afraid I haven't read it. As a matter of fact, I fell sound asleep trying to read Gnosis so many times, I quit my subscription. It has a higher fog index than The Quest, if thats possible. Could you give me a thumbnail summary? Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 23:27:26 1996 Date: 23 Aug 96 19:27:26 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Jungian Slip (??) Message-Id: <960823232726_76400.1474_HHL65-4@CompuServe.COM> >Jerry, >My typos are NEVER Freudian. Good Theosophists are all Jungians. :-) Chuck, how true. The Freudian slip was in my own response. Sorry to have doubted you. :-) Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 23:27:22 1996 Date: 23 Aug 96 19:27:22 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: M. Bertiaux Message-Id: <960823232722_76400.1474_HHL65-2@CompuServe.COM> >In the Chicago area Michael Bertiaux is a super biggie among gnostics. My >own line of succession is through him. And the stuff he is into is actually >quite the done thing for gnostics in this part of the world. Chuck, I can tell from his book that he Knows what he is talking about. Its his screwy names for things, and his weird humor that keep throwing me off. But it is probably done on purpose ala Crowley (whose "Holy Guardian Angel" remains an embarrassment for me). >Of course his work with the Qlipoth has been known to raise even my hairs on >occasion, which may explain why I can never quite remember how to spell his >name. What is he doing that is any different from Kenneth Grant's Tunnels of Set? I can't imagine anything raising your hairs, Chuck. Jerry S. Member, TI From 76400.1474@CompuServe.COM Fri Aug 23 23:27:26 1996 Date: 23 Aug 96 19:27:26 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Etheric Plane Message-Id: <960823232725_76400.1474_HHL65-3@CompuServe.COM> >I found something you disagree with -- the definition in the glossary of >"etheric". I just checked this, and you are correct. She uses the formula etheric=astral, which is kinda weird. I wonder where she got that from? She implies that it comes from the SD, but it is likely just her interpretation, because I have never got such an idea from the SD. Anyway, using the cosmic elements, I use the formulas etheric=Earth and astral=Water where the etheric is the region of subplanes beyond our physical senses but still on the physical plane. Thanks for pointing this out. I always like to think that I differ from other writers at least somewhere. :-) Jerry S. Member, TI From jem@vnet.net Sat Aug 24 00:21:44 1996 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:21:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199608240021.UAA28564@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Cayce interview vs. tsa problems? >In short, I was made to feel fully, unambiguously welcome in a >way that makes up for some wounds of the past. And left feeling >a great optimism about the future of Cayce scholarship and of >the movement itself. > that's nice to see in a old/mature organization. (one in exestence for years after the founders death). any ideas why the TSA has problems, and the cayce org. does not. ?? is it due to the people, structure, or lack of an esoteric-leader(s) who assumed they had a position to fulfill as "leaders"? i.e. no ES as an inner circle of elite? 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 Sat Aug 24 00:32:29 1996 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:32:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "John E. Mead" Message-Id: <199608240032.UAA28795@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: gif/binary files usually you can send these things as MIME/binary files (an attachment). However, I'm not sure if the listserver handles these correctly (like in digest mode, you only get one text file. probably sent as ascii, and corrupted through the e-mail systems. you cannot send binary through e-mail. that is why they have MIME and uuencoded files). my suggestion is to perhaps send the file 1) to individuals who want it (as MIME/binary attachments), and they should be able to extract it. 2) possibly add the file (gif etc.) to the library. but it may need to be uuencoded. I haven't tried that. If it ends up as a text file in the library, it is probably not going to be readable after being sent as a regular e-mail (unless it uuencoded). peace - john e. mead p.s. comments from others are welcome. ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 24 00:20:58 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 01:20:58 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: The Etheric Plane In-Reply-To: <960823232725_76400.1474_HHL65-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960823232725_76400.1474_HHL65-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes >I use the formulas etheric=Earth and astral=Water >where the etheric is the region of subplanes beyond our >physical senses but still on the physical plane. So do I. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 23 22:39:43 1996 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 23:39:43 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Nuclei - Clones of Elitist Brotherhood? In-Reply-To: <960823011241_72723.2375_FHP77-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960823011241_72723.2375_FHP77-1@CompuServe.COM>, "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes >Alan: >>I got Pluto in Cancer - does that mean I don't qualify? [sob] > >Your Sun conjuncts your Venus, so you're invited. > >-Ann E. Bermingham > Phew! New Age here I come (We sixth root race people have to be *so* careful ... Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From wichm@xs4all.nl Sat Aug 24 08:49:51 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:49:51 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608240849.KAA29158@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Psychosophy Psychosophy by A.Priori. Is this a joke? Michael From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 24 17:14:36 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:14:36 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960824131436_392980119@emout14.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Gnosis Magazine Jerry, OK, Donald Tyson wrote an article that basically said that John Dee discovered a way to let the monsters from the pit loose upon humanity but never quite opened the door all the way, the door being the enochian system. According to his thesis, the more the system is used, the wider the door gets until all hell breaks loose. If true, you be in a heeeep of trouble. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 24 17:14:43 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:14:43 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960824131442_392980164@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Jungian Slip (??) Jerry, You are forgiven. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 24 17:14:48 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:14:48 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960824131448_392980214@emout10.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: t.fr, theos-l@vnet.net Does any one here read Italian? Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 24 17:23:17 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:23:17 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960824131450_392980191@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: M. Bertiaux Jerry, A year ago at Nutmeg we did the spider rite with some of his students (he wasn't there, poor fellow) and when the young woman got possessed I was not entirely sure we could repossess her. Chuck the Heretic From euser@euronet.nl Sat Aug 24 19:47:52 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 21:47:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608241947.VAA18011@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Eno Mag Jerry> These are squares of 2, and are the binary numbers used in coding computers. My publisher swears that most of the avid Enochian practitions are also computer nerds. Something to think about. The number two is used in nature all over the place. From cell division to polarities in male/female; day-night;dark-light in Sacred geometry it plays an important role too: two triangles form a square. Four triangles form a tetrahedron. Eight form the interlaced tetrahedon, etc. Symmetry, or rather complementarity is a key feature in nature. The octave in music is another example of the use of the number two (as a proportion) in nature. >Do you describe different types of energies/states of consciousness >(I gather you do - what are the correspondences with the theosophical >principles-elements ?) The Enochian system, like other magical systems, are described largely in terms of imagery rather than "principles." The elements are used to transform each Square into a Truncated Pyramid ala the Golden Dawn (Mathers was truly a genius). But even with this, the goal is largely one of imagery (if water, you would expect to see a lake, etc). If I remember correctly, GD practices are intended to form a kind of inner pentagram (symbolical for a renewed human constitution, I think) I gather it is a kind of reversal of polarities of (use of) energies or a shift from ego-consciousness to Ego-consciousness, also a shift in intent(ion). This will sound familiar to you. What do you know/think about that? Martin From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 24 19:57:15 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:57:15 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: gif/binary files In-Reply-To: <199608240032.UAA28795@katie.vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 These *can* be placed on Web pages, and I have one in a history subdirectory out of my own main web page. I recently successfully received some zip files from Macnev Uri, though they has to be broken down into smaller files after the first attempt and resent with different filenames. My ISP states that packets over 64K will not always pass through all transports en route to their destination, so I limit binary sendings to around 50K maximum - uuencodeing adds some. It helps if your software supports MIME, which theos-l (and presumably vnet) does not appear to do - my software recognises MIME capable messages, and the theos list postings arrive with this box unchecked. Software is Turnpike, and registered versions come with Netscape. Alan In message <199608240032.UAA28795@katie.vnet.net>, "John E. Mead" writes >usually you can send these things as MIME/binary files (an >attachment). However, I'm not sure if the listserver handles these >correctly (like in digest mode, you only get one text file. probably >sent as ascii, and corrupted through the e-mail systems. you cannot >send binary through e-mail. that is why they have MIME and >uuencoded files). > >my suggestion is to perhaps send the file >1) to individuals who want it (as MIME/binary attachments), and they >should be able to extract it. >2) possibly add the file (gif etc.) to the library. but it may need to be >uuencoded. I haven't tried that. If it ends up as a text file >in the library, it is probably not going to be readable after being >sent as a regular e-mail (unless it uuencoded). > >peace - > >john e. mead > >p.s. comments from others are welcome. > >----------------------------------------------------------- >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] >----------------------------------------------------------- --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 26 06:07:45 1996 Date: 26 Aug 96 02:07:45 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Midsummer Madness - Remembrance of Things Past Message-Id: <960826060744_74024.3352_BHT82-1@CompuServe.COM> I often try to meditate in the afternoon at work. I read a little of the VOS and listen to some calming music. I had something very close to a past life regression recently during one of these meditations. I know that most people believe that much of these "ideas" and experiences come from the astral plane or are just wishful thinking and more Maya and to be ignored, but.... This was so powerful and convincing emotionally that I thought I might share it and see what others may think. I had overwhelming feelings of sadness and my whole body shook as I cried. I wonder if I am having cryptonesia, where I remember something I heard or read and am presenting it to myself as a past life memory when it is only a memory plus fanatasy. Anyway, I suddenly experinced myself as a child. I realized that I had spent an entire life sick in a bed. I was attended somtime courteously, sometimes not. I remember a lot a pain associated with being a sick child. I was frustrated all the time. I was placated and attended, but nothing made me happy. I thought that only people who could walk around and looked healthy could ever really be happy on earth. I remember I had the ability to slip out of my body and gained a lot of experince doing this as a way to escape the pain of being strapped to a bed and in constant pain and torment of the medical "treatments". I also remember that there were some kind of experiments being performed. I felt as if I were being used in some horrible way. I thought about the experince later and wondered if the people were not using me to harness the kundalini energy in my body in some way and this kept me sick and debilitated. I wonder if the secret of the Atlantean magicians was not the harnessing of the Sun in crystals, but the transfer of human spiritual energy into crystals for control of the elements as well as mind control. The Pluto in Leo as symbol of the Age of Atlantis as Age of Leo may have something to do with this idea as Pluto is the symbol ot the desire to use and control subterranean energies. The caduesus, the scepter and orb are remnants of the kings privilege to harness the kundalini - spiritual fire of humanity. It can be brought down to the earth for selfish controlling ends or it can be used to guide and set humantiy on a path to accelerated freedom. Aquarius shows the kundalini spiritual fire being poured out from the stars to all of humanity. I hope we don't have to wait for Pluto to go into Aquarius before we can experience the freeedom that this would imply. Attempts at mind control are always in the shadows of mass movements like National Socialism and the cults which will not let their members defect. Mind control is more powerful than control of behavior. The ability to direct spiritual energy would indeed affect the entire planet. Like atomic energy it would unleash powerful forces . Purity and power rarely go together. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes. I guess this is why Blavatsky harps on purity of motive free from selfishness, egotism and hedonism when contacting spiritual energies available to the Silent Listener to the Voice of the Silence. Has anyone read anything like this in Cayce or anywhere, am I remebering this from somewhere or is it only Midsummer Madness? Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 26 06:08:23 1996 Date: 26 Aug 96 02:08:23 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Voice of Silence - silence Message-Id: <960826060822_74024.3352_BHT82-2@CompuServe.COM> Is anyone still reading VOS. I guess the back to school karma and Virgo time of the year has more to do with practical communication than theosopy. However, I still pick it up and work and reread pasages etc. The first page has the interesting injuction: "The Mind is the Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB All that capitalization implies personification or divinity or both. The thought producer is linked to the senses. The Disciple (or the divine part of the student) must link with the Silent Speaker (more capitializations) in order to hear the Voice of the Silence. "Kill thy desires ... strangle thy sins ... kill in thyself all memory of past experiences." - HPB Isn't this a little violent? This self-abuse and flagellation of the products of consciousness can be seen in poetic or allegorcial, yet it still seems a little morbid to the modern mind. The modern view is to sit down with your desires and sins and have a nice chat. They are only archetypes and like members of a dysfuctional family can "recover" and enter into more harmonious relationships. Is this ascetism necessary? I hate to harp on the theme of misguided purity, but hating your sins? Hate seems to breed hate and focusing on sins would only make them have more power, in today's lingo. Transform the base into gold maybe as in the alchemical mode. Couldn't these senses and sins be harnassed for some higher purpose/ I think she probably has somthing more subtle in mind of course, but she does insist on KILL, KILL, KILL past hope of resurrection all our little human frailites etc. What an order! I can't go through with it! I am glad I have seven lives to go. (Cheshire grin:) Namaste Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Mon Aug 26 06:28:07 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 01:28:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence In-Reply-To: <960826060822_74024.3352_BHT82-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Keith Price wrote: > The first page has the interesting injuction: "The Mind is the Slayer of the > Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB > I see a parallel to what Krishnaji has been speaking about when he says that mind always works in the past and thus obstructs our view and thus understanding. May be HPB is saying the same. When you go beyond mind - the real intelligence which is not part of mind sees things as they are. Just a thought. ..Ramadoss From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Mon Aug 26 13:06:08 1996 Date: 26 Aug 96 09:06:08 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - Silence Message-Id: <960826130607_72723.2375_FHP49-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >The first page has the interesting injuction: "The Mind is the Slayer of the >Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB >All that capitalization implies personification or divinity or both. The >thought producer is linked to the senses. . . My interpretation here is that the Mind divides and categorizes, separating and labeling people, plants, animals. Next comes "I like that one better" or "person was nice to me" and "my ethnic group is better than them". Mind hides or obscures the intutitional vision that sees everything as expression of the One, each unique and valueable in their own way. >"Kill thy desires ... strangle thy sins ... kill in thyself all memory of past >experiences." - HPB Your past experiences color the way you look at things today. One has to get beyond that conditioning to see things as they really are. My interpretation here is that she is talking about clearing out the emotional/astral fog that has accumulated over lifetimes. Desire needs to be transmuted to service. Strangle thy sins - sounds like a nineteenth century way of saying "Clean up your act!" >Is this ascetism necessary? Sometimes abstaining or getting away from things (like on a retreat) makes you appreciate them better and leads to right use. Bad habits can perpetuate themselves just out of habit. Time for a break! >I think she probably has somthing more subtle in mind of course, but she does >insist on KILL, KILL, KILL past hope of resurrection all our little human >frailites etc. What an order! I can't go through with it! I am glad I have >seven lives to go. (Cheshire grin:) IMHO, HPB had a strong personality and that may be the way she saw or expressed it. From my viewpoint, when you ready to give up the personality to the soul, it won't seem lilke that. It's just a natural giving up to the higher forces. There is no violent sacrifice when you are doing something out of pure love. -Ann E. Bermingham From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 26 14:18:23 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 15:18:23 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence In-Reply-To: <960826060822_74024.3352_BHT82-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960826060822_74024.3352_BHT82-2@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >"Kill thy desires ... strangle thy sins ... kill in thyself all memory of past >experiences." - HPB > >Isn't this a little violent? This self-abuse and flagellation of the products >of consciousness can be seen in poetic or allegorcial, yet it still seems a >little morbid to the modern mind. I think I'll buy Ann's interpretation on all this, in a general sense. This "kill and control" mentality is typical of asceticism generally. If we are to kill all memory of past experiences, then what is the point of going deeply into the question of reincarnation, for example? "Strangle thy sins" - this seems to give "sins" a kind of objective existence of their own. But the word(s) from scripture which have been rendered "sin" and then redefined by dogmatic theology mean nothing more than "missing the target" or "getting it wrong." You can break the arrow, and you can destroy the target, but you can't strangle the aim - you can only try to correct it. So let's mend, not strangle. "Kill thy desires" - makes no sense at all, for if you want to do this, you must set up a desire to kill your desires, which is absurd! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Aug 26 22:04:56 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:04:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608262312.TAA13991@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence Serge King's interpretation is that there isn't anything *but* the present. Your memories of the past are whatever you remember of the event in the present (your present memories may not be exactly what happened ... according to psychological experiments, are most probably not what really happened ( besides which, various people perceived the event in various ways to begin with); your expectations of the future are whatever you decide to expect in the present (it may not be what will happen, it's only as you expect or plan it to happen ). You perceive directly some of what is presently happening. You cannot really perceive anything else directly, except what is happening right now. 2 minutes down the road it's already a memory. One minute before it happens it's only an expectation , and not yet an event. Liesel ........................................................................... ..... >On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Keith Price wrote: > >> The first page has the interesting injuction: "The Mind is the Slayer of the >> Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB >> > I see a parallel to what Krishnaji has been speaking about when he >says that mind always works in the past and thus obstructs our view and >thus understanding. May be HPB is saying the same. When you go beyond >mind - the real intelligence which is not part of mind sees things as >they are. Just a thought. > > ..Ramadoss From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sun Aug 25 17:17:03 1996 Date: 25 Aug 96 13:17:03 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Bertiaux on the WWW Message-Id: <960825171703_72723.2375_FHP45-1@CompuServe.COM> Hi folks of theos-l, I know there was a discussion recently about Micheal Bertiaux. I searched the web and came up with this page regarding him: http://www.newciv.org/worldtrans/ncn/ega.html -Ann E. Bermingham From jmeier@microfone.net Sun Aug 25 14:57:54 1996 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:57:54 -0400 From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Message-Id: <199608251857.AA12278@vnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Robert Muller & the WCC About a week ago, someone on the list wrote that Robert Mueller was a lunatic. This was in regards to an event relating to a book review in the current Quest; my issue hadn't arrived at the time I read the posting, so I wasn't sure if Robert Mueller meant Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary to the United Nations (pesky German names; there's always too many vowels, and it's hard to tell if there should be an umlaut over them or not). Anyway, my Quest finally arrived and it is in fact Robert Muller who was referenced. Since I think of him as a hero rather than a lunatic, I'd like to present an alternate opinion. In the 1982 book TALK DOES NOT COOK THE RICE; A COMMENTARY ON THE TEACHING OF AGNI YOGA (R.H.H.; ISBN 0-87728-530-6), there are several references to "a New Age school in Texas" doing wonderful things with education of young people. That is the Robert Muller School in Arlington, Texas, which is an accredited alternative school for 0years - 12th grade studies. The earlier years are taught on a program of "balanced beginnings", which is based on maximizing the newborn & infant neural pathways, and later grades are taught using the World Core Curriculum developed by Robert Muller. There is a homepage at http://testor.uta.edu/~rms/mainrms.htm and also http://testor.uta.edu/~rms/ which gives a lot of information about the various programs but in a nutshell, the World Core Curriculum is based on the principle of Four Harmonies: 1) Our Planetary Home and Place in the Universe: relates the infinitely small to the infinitely large and shows the inter-relatedness of the Whole. The expanse of planetary knowledge is essential to enlighten self-interest and to teach children about the international cooperation which is needed for responsible world citizenship. 2) Our Human Family: deals with the various human groups and teaches the beauty and meaning of diversity. Underlying diversity is the sense of Oneness which relates all people, and this is the foundation which leads to an understanding of peace and goodwill for all who inhabit this world. 3) Our Place in Time: reveals evolutionary development. We must embrace the past as that from which we have learned to deal with the present and recognize the vision which is needed in order to build the future. From such a perspective we gain a vision of the continuum of Life. 4) The Miracle of Individual Human Life: brings to education the idea of the uniqueness of the individual and true human fulfillment in planetary existence. It brings transforming joy to the individual, being a part of the human kingdom which is not only the most ingenious and creative of all of earth's kingdoms but also that which presents the greatest opportunity to be right servers of the planet and the universe. All of which seems pretty Theosophical to me. In the words of Dr. Catherine Clark, "Our greatest effort at this time is to work constantly towards right human relations, because such is the ground upon which a new world can emerge. A revolution in education is needed for a suitable model on which to build a new education. The World Core Curriculum is a positive and powerful model for this effort, because it is universal in its scope and provides each student with a dynamic sense of belonging and responsibility in the realization of the one humanity. This realization is the ultimate goal of our journey here in the earth, and it is for our children that we must provide this, for they are our ultimate investment." There is a short interview with Dr. Muller in the summer 1995 issue of the World Goodwill Newsletter, which can be referenced at http://www.oneworld.org/worldgoodwill/ Jim From liesel@dreamscape.com Sun Aug 25 23:18:27 1996 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 19:18:27 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608260025.UAA00218@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Italian >Does any one here read Italian? > >Chuck the Heretic I understand enough of it to think that he's selling something esoteric for free on the internet, if you ask him for it. Maybe somebody else understnad Italian better that I. Liesel From trankusek@earthlink.net Mon Aug 26 05:56:21 1996 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:56:21 -0800 From: ArtHouse Message-Id: <32213C85.60BB@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: something to look at Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------244172693ADE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------244172693ADE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folks, I'm the artist who uploaded that pile of alphabet soup recently.(Oops!) I was trying to send some images to the list but apparently, that's not gonna work! Ive gone ahead and made them available at the following URL: http://www.musicpowernetwork.com/ts/ They'll be there for a little while until my own site is up! You are all invited to the exhibit!. Regards, Mark --------------244172693ADE Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Art, Wisdom Tradition, & Imagination

A nod of the hat
- to those who are looking -

Welcome to an exhibition
of artwork inspired by Wisdom Tradition.

Psychographic Diagrams
A series exploring correspondences


Jungian Twist


Sans Words


Theosophied


Gallery
A few potatoes for the stew


Soul: From ego to Ego


Life of Lives


Buddha, Christ, Now What?

Free from the Personal


Para / Beyond


Culture


The Last Days of Atlantis


Theosophical Napkins
Inspired Scribbles
(You make them too, right?)


Napkin #1


Napkin #2


Napkin #3


Thanks for looking.

Comments and responses are always appreciated.
(I'd love to see the pictures you make!)

Email Mark at ArtHouse


All Images Copyright © 1996 Mark Kusek. All Rights Reserved

--------------244172693ADE-- From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 22 15:25:08 1996 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 16:25:08 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: To Cosimano In-Reply-To: <960822004817_265745510@emout14.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960822004817_265745510@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Could it be that YOU are the real agent of the Anti-Christ (lucky devil!)? >:-) :-) > >Chuck the Heretic Dear Cosimano, If I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times - YOU ARE MY AGENT - so there! Anti-Christ [signed] From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Mon Aug 26 14:14:39 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 10:14:39 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608261414.KAA28264@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Questions of JEM and Martin John Mead asks, in a recent post, why TSA does not show the same enthusiasm for scholarly investigation of its history that the ARE does. I'd say this can be generalized to all the Theosophical organizations, none of which really embraces the idea that there is a need for objective, critical, skeptical study of HPB and the Masters-- or anything that came after. So what are the relevant differences which would make the ARE more receptive to someone pursuing research that is potentially controversial? 1. Most important, as John suggests, is the role of the ES in governing the TS. The very nature of governance by a cryptocratic inner group, which derives its legitimacy from a particular set of historical claims, militates against any opening to fundamental questioning of those claims. ARE governance is also by an elected board, but there is no secret inner order pulling the strings. 2. Second is the relative unpopularity of HPB with the public compared to Cayce. There are a great many books attacking HPB or portraying her as less than the heroic figure Theosophists honor. Many people have a mainly negative image of her. This causes a bunker mentality within the movement, a sense of polarity between disbelieving outsiders and devoted disciples. Cayce on the other hand has received almost entirely favorable press. Thus ARE leadership is not worried about losing face or credibility due to criticism that might be published about Cayce. They have a confidence that their movement is growing in numbers and influence, and that any attention paid to Cayce will ultimately benefit them. Theosophical leaders are aware that their movement is shrinking in numbers and influence, and are suspicious and defensive about any revisionist scholarship that might further undermine their historical claims-- and accelerate their decline. 3. The Cayce readings themselves are more definite and unambiguous about the need for skepticism and caution on the part of readers than HPB is, although she does say many times that people should accept nothing on her authority. The legitimacy of the ARE does not rest on any implicit claims about spiritual authority, unlike the TSes, but rather on the usefulness of the material it publishes and the programs it sponsors. Martin asks about what Cayce says on the paranormal. This is a huge question, and I can only state a few points. He explained his own ability in a reading: The subconscious mind of Edgar Cayce is in direct communication with all other subconscious minds, and is capable of interpreting through his objective mind and imparting impressions received to other objective minds, gathering in this way all knowledge possessed by millions of other subconscious minds. Although Freud and Jung are clearly influences on the readings' terminology and concepts, they (the readings) recommend Thomson Jay Hudson, P.D. Ouspensky, and William James for explanations of psychic phenomena. In less than one percent of the readings, discarnate or angelic spirits spoke through Cayce in mediumistic fashion. But by and large the readings discourage Spiritualism, especially automatic writing and ouija board use-- warning that possession is a real danger. Quoting from my ms., "A holistic approach is strongly recommended; the readings distinguish between the mystic, the psychic and the occult, saying that although they are one, `mystic is as the spirit or the activity, whereas the psychic is the soul, the occult is the mind. Do not confuse; for each in their respective sphere--if and when taken alone-- becomes confusing.' As this passage indicates, psychic experience was always regarded as less important than spiritual awakening and mental comprehension." The psychic ability about which Cayce spoke most favorably was seeing auras, which he was able to do-- the only paranormal ability he demonstrated in a conscious state. Hope this helps give a taste of his approach. Cheers Paul From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 26 15:35:54 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 11:35:54 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960826113553_394191669@emout12.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Robert Muller & the WCC Jim, Aside from the fact that only lunatics admit in public to getting advice from their dead wives, Mueller (there is no umlaut on an aol system) has a peculiarly fascistic vision a world spiritual state run by a group of leaders who will decide what is good for everyone else. Those of us who had the dreadful misfortune of sitting through him at the much over-rated World Parliament of Religions three years ago found ourselves in the horribly embarrassing position of agreeing with the religious right that the vision he presented wa s nothing short of tyrannical. I can live without heros of any sort and particularly madmen like him. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 26 15:36:05 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 11:36:05 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960826113604_394191817@emout17.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: something to look at CELLPADDING???? You got Robert Mueller there? Chuck the Heretic From apriorip@earthlink.net Mon Aug 26 18:03:51 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:03:51 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Message-Id: <3221E6FF.6D22@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Robert Muller & the WCC References: <199608261728.AA25391@vnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As may be known to some on this list I worked at the Robert Muller school in the mid 80's and did (I say this simply to point out the truth of the matter) much of the work (both in esoteric psychology education and astrochemistry [see links to my home page]) that they are now publishing claiming to be their group work. Although that organization did in the beginning have great potential they did succumb to the same old authoritarian control and manipulation/deception that have corrupted so many groups. I had a falling out with them in the late 80's because of this and I do agree (but wishing it were otherwise) that many in that movement and throughout the range of what is called the N.G.W.S. (a good organization at heart) are deluded into thinking that some form of international UN controlled gov't will "save" the world. The perspective of correct solution, having to do with freedom and responsibility, on these matters is, I believe, as described at http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html Love, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Aug 26 17:18:39 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:18:39 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608261826.OAA08749@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: to Ken: Re: Midsummer madness > Purity and power rarely go together. Power >corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes. I guess >this is why Blavatsky harps on purity of motive free from selfishness, egotism >and hedonism when contacting spiritual energies available to the Silent >Listener to the Voice of the Silence. > Dear Ken, You've hit on what I consider a very important point. If you read Annie Besant's "The Path to Discipleship", you'll note that ethics are a big factor in what you're supposed to learn, along with the wisdom & the spiritual techniques that give you power. I think no one is ever initiated who has not also acquired a certain amount of ethical beliefs and behavior ... who's well schooled in Ahimsa, who has trained him(her)self in the practice of it. Esoteric powers, knowledge, need to be used only with love and "for the benefit of mankind" (or a part thereof). People who become corrupted by power aren't initiated into the deep spiritual secrets of the universe, because as much care as possible is taken that they're only used for the good. Also, most often, people who aren't apritually advanced enough, don't understand the voice of the silence, or only partly understand what it means. I'm not talking so much from experience now, as from what I've been told to expect. Hope this clarifies. Liesel From trankusek@earthlink.net Mon Aug 26 19:47:25 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 11:47:25 -0800 From: ArtHouse Message-Id: <3221FF4D.4622@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Lets try that again! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Boy, there's nothing quite so humbling as trying to post to this list! First I bother you with gobblety gook, then html, I just hope you look at the artwork! :-) Art, Wisdom Tradition and Imagination: An Exhibit http://www.musicpowernetwork.com/ts/ Perserverence is a virtue, no? Cheers, Mark From liesel@dreamscape.com Mon Aug 26 17:51:55 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:51:55 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608261859.OAA10724@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Ken, Re: Voice of the Silence >The modern view is to sit down with your >desires and sins and have a nice chat. I agree. I think if you sit down & talk with them or about them, they're much more likely to fall into line than if you come at them with a sword, and "charge!". I think it's true that like Krishamurti says (& the Roshis say) you ought to be able to see what your face was like before you were born, and that would give you greater insight into the why of your desires & sins. If you could get rid of all the stupid things you do because of the way the grown ups around you treated you when you were little, and because of what was generally happening around you, (like I was born into an apartment shortage, which had certain effects on my behavior, & my husband was born in a war zone.) you might rend quite a few more veils of your own Maya. But as Freud found out, this is very difficult; and as his successors found out, if overdone, this can be more destructive than beneficial. At times, I've worked real hard at trying to find my face before I was born, and I've gotten some results towards the desired ends. Now that I'm older, I've come to the conclusion that I'll just get rid of what I can get rid of (or clarify) without too much trouble, and maybe another day I'll be able to get rid of (or clarify) something else. If not, then not. Why fight? As my Teacher Harry said "lift one veil and there's another behind it." Liesel From Drpsionic@aol.com Mon Aug 26 23:15:19 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:15:19 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960826191518_188243995@emout18.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cosimano Dear Anti-Christ, Then I expect my 15% commission. Chuck the Heretic From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 26 21:57:20 1996 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 22:57:20 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Lets try that again! In-Reply-To: <3221FF4D.4622@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Hi Mark! I looked at the artwork, but only thumbnails - the html links didn't seem to work. What I did see looked fine! In message <3221FF4D.4622@earthlink.net>, ArtHouse writes >Hi All, > >Boy, there's nothing quite so humbling as trying to post to this list! >First I bother you with gobblety gook, then html, I just hope you look >at the artwork! :-) Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From euser@euronet.nl Mon Aug 26 23:35:05 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 01:35:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608262335.BAA15507@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: authorial reluctance (reply to Kim) >Do you mean you know less known sutras? Kim> Not necessarily less known, but what I believe to be a real description of the philosophy is found in the shukaanuprashnaH in the Mokshadharma parva of the Mahabharata. It makes it clear (with the shorter remarks in Bhagavad Gita) that there existed 2 schools - the sa.nkhya and the yogins. The 3 parvas Bhagavad gita, Anugita and mokshadharma are of the highest quality, and this fact alone makes me trust them to a high degree. I know the first two parvas you mention and agree to their quality. The Gita is one of the most powerful spiritual messages I've ever come across. I don't know the mokshadharma. Is it available as a separately published book? (I particularly like WQ Judges comments to the Gita [a Theosophy Company publishment]. A strong spiritual vibration can be clearly experienced when one attunes to the spirits behind this book) Kim> Interestingly the yogins had a system of philosophy (far beyond the human character) If it's far beyond the human character, why would they have it and of what consisted this system? Kim>My point here is the striking similarity between the most ancient ideas on these subjects and the modern. Understanding is a process of course, and a long one in spiritual matters. Agreed. In friendship, Kim In friendship, Martin From euser@euronet.nl Mon Aug 26 23:35:08 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 01:35:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608262335.BAA15517@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Martin's question - to Paul Johnson Paul>In less than one percent of the readings, discarnate or angelic spirits spoke through Cayce in mediumistic fashion. But by and large the readings discourage Spiritualism, especially automatic writing and ouija board use-- warning that possession is a real danger. Well, I like that warning. It draws attention to the fact that a passive receptive attitude to the 'spirits-world' can attract unexpected guests. Paul>As this passage indicates, psychic experience was always regarded as less important than spiritual awakening and mental comprehension." This looks a lot like the Theosophical position, doesn't it? Paul>Hope this helps give a taste of his approach. Thanks for providing some insight to Cayce, Paul. If you ever feel inclined to elaborate on this, please do so. It saves me (and maybe others) a lot of time. At least we get a quick impression on the work of Cayce. Cheers Paul Cheers Martin From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 27 00:05:02 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 01:05:02 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Theosophy International Mime-Version: 1.0 It's good to see that the number of subscribers has increased somewhat since I last looked! (Send a post to listproc@vnet.net with the single line rev theos-l - omit subject and sig). Info on Theosophy International is available on my homepage, which has a link to the other TI site listed below. Anyone who cannot as yet browse the World Wide Web (WWW or Web) can e-mail me personally for more information. In fellowship, Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 26 23:52:34 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:52:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Cosimano In-Reply-To: <960826191518_188243995@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960826191518_188243995@emout18.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Dear Anti-Christ, >Then I expect my 15% commission. > >Chuck the Heretic NO NO NO! YOU pay ME! AC From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Aug 27 04:31:41 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:31:41 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960827000236_269620045@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Lets try that again! Virtues are things to avoid, but I'll take a look at the site anyway. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Tue Aug 27 17:20:42 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:20:42 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960827132041_510889807@emout13.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cosimano Dear Anti-Christ, May I refer you to the very fine print at the bottom of page 768 of our contract wherein it states clearly that I am entitled to 15% of all revenue in earthly sales, 50% of all infernal sales, 20% of all interplanetary sales as well as 10% on the rental of the Ark of the Covenant. Chuck the Heretic From poulsen@dk-online.dk Tue Aug 27 23:33:10 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 21:33:10 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB9462.A5577A20@ppp204.dk-online.dk> Subject: RE: authorial reluctance (reply to Kim) Encoding: 42 TEXT, 74 UUENCODE >I know the first two parvas you mention and agree to their >quality. The Gita is one of the most powerful spiritual messages I've >ever come across. I don't know the mokshadharma. Is it available >as a separately published book? Not to my knowledge. The mokshadharma parva itself contains several high quality pieces, not the least of which is Vyasa's instruction to his son. The best chance is to get a whole translation of the Mahabharata - like the excellent on by M.N.Dutt ("Mahabharata", Parimal Publications, Delhi 1988, ISBN 81-7110-068-6) at only 2500 rupees for 7 volumes (something around 70 dollars US). It is very good and retains the verse structure, something which is vital to the understanding, as every student of the Bhagavad Gita knows. In fact, I'm looking for a set myself. Unfortunately the various texts are not identified in this translation, but this may be a minor problem. Worse, it is a translation of the Calcutta edition which differs somewhat from the commonly used critical Poona edition (it becomes annoying when comparing with the text). For the text itself (Poona edition) it is available on the net in ITRANS format (both devanagari and transliterated). BTW, I'm a great fan of the lectures on the BG by T. Subba Row. >>Kim> Interestingly the yogins had a system of philosophy (far >>beyond the human character) > If it's far beyond the human character, why would they have it >and of what consisted this system? There was a big piece missing there. Either it remained in my brain or in deep cyberspace. What I ment was the yogins had a system dealing with universal principles reaching far beyond human principles and the workings of the forces in the human character. Very strange. Surprising that you made an attempt to understand my meaning! (The idea I had in my mind was the comment in a ML, that the human principles cannot be studied apart from the universal, a point very often forgot in study, I fear.) In friendship, Kim Attachment Converted: "C:\TEMP\WINMAIL4.DAT" From dickes@xnet.com Tue Aug 27 22:20:52 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:20:52 -0500 From: "Stephen M. Dicke" Message-Id: <322374C4.148A@xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How do I put a question to those on the list? My questions are this... I am especially a fan of two areas in theosophical history: 1. philosophy of J. Krishnamurti 2. "pseudo"-science (alchemy of Bessant, Leadbeater & Hodson and study of "paranormal" electromagnetic measurements to be exact). Are there any others with interests in either of these two? Are there any lists that cater to these areas? Can anyone help me here? Stephen M. Dicke dickes@xnet.com (work: stephen.m.dicke@zenithe.com) From liesel@dreamscape.com Tue Aug 27 14:23:09 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:23:09 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608271530.LAA21435@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence Come to think of it, on the other hand, we're taught that we incarnate to learn. If we kill out all desires & experiences, then we'll make the same mistakes over again next time. That makes me even more in favor of talking to it & about it, & changing how you think about it rather than killing it out. If you change it, then you remember approximately what it was like before you changed it, & why you were motivated to change it. Liesel ........................................................................... ..... >In message <960826060822_74024.3352_BHT82-2@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price ><74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >>"Kill thy desires ... strangle thy sins ... kill in thyself all memory of past >>experiences." - HPB >> >>Isn't this a little violent? This self-abuse and flagellation of the products >>of consciousness can be seen in poetic or allegorcial, yet it still seems a >>little morbid to the modern mind. > >I think I'll buy Ann's interpretation on all this, in a general sense. >This "kill and control" mentality is typical of asceticism generally. >If we are to kill all memory of past experiences, then what is the point >of going deeply into the question of reincarnation, for example? > >"Strangle thy sins" - this seems to give "sins" a kind of objective >existence of their own. But the word(s) from scripture which have been >rendered "sin" and then redefined by dogmatic theology mean nothing more >than "missing the target" or "getting it wrong." You can break the >arrow, and you can destroy the target, but you can't strangle the aim - >you can only try to correct it. So let's mend, not strangle. > >"Kill thy desires" - makes no sense at all, for if you want to do this, >you must set up a desire to kill your desires, which is absurd! > >Alan >--------- >Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age >TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk >http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From ramadoss@eden.com Wed Aug 28 10:31:18 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:31:18 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Question In-Reply-To: <322374C4.148A@xnet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Glad to see your message. There may be many who are interested in the two topics you listed. As for the first one, I am one of the beneficiaries of philosophy of Krishnaji which made me better understand the application of theosophy in my approach to life and dealing with humanity. MK Ramadoss On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Stephen M. Dicke wrote: > How do I put a question to those on the list? My questions are this... > I am especially a fan of two areas in theosophical history: > 1. philosophy of J. Krishnamurti > 2. "pseudo"-science (alchemy of Bessant, Leadbeater & Hodson > and study of "paranormal" electromagnetic measurements to > be exact). > Are there any others with interests in either of these two? Are > there any lists that cater to these areas? Can anyone help me > here? > > Stephen M. Dicke > dickes@xnet.com (work: stephen.m.dicke@zenithe.com) > From wichm@xs4all.nl Wed Aug 28 17:02:57 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:02:57 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608281702.TAA29541@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Pre-HPB-TS Paul wrote: "Thus ARE leadership is not worried about losing face or credibility due to criticism that might be published about Cayce. They have a confidence that their movement is growing in numbers and influence, and that any attention paid to Cayce will ultimately benefit them. Theosophical leaders are aware that their movement is shrinking in numbers and influence, and are suspicious and defensive about any revisionist scholarship that might further undermine their historical claims-- and accelerate their decline." Of course Edgar Cayce was in character far apart from the vagabond/ prophetess-like figure of HPB. I wonder whether anyone would have heard of the Theosophical Society had she not been one of the founders. Research into science, philosophy and religion would have remained the passtime of a few. It is understandable that the TS feels unconsciously that returning to its pre-HPB origins would mean a further dwindling of membership. Once the clamorous aspects of Masters, secret doctrines and all that are removed, little is left for those who hanker after a belief. Yet, it had its useful purpose to bring home a grand vision on life to the masses for whatever it is worth. Michael From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Wed Aug 28 18:04:52 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 14:04:52 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608281804.OAA15259@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: Cayce & Psychism In response to Martin's request for further details concerning Cayce's approach to psychic powers etc.: I sense a much more positive attitude generally in A.R.E. circles towards clairvoyance, telepathy, astrology, auras, kundalini, etc. than in Theosophical circles. There are frequent workshops and conferences at the headquarters on such things-- an upcoming one on regression, for example-- and the whole point of the study group program is a practical, daily approach to the spiritual life. Although Cayce is just as insistent as HPB that the psychic cart not be put before the spiritual/intellectual horse, he still sees psychism as an integral and valued part of life rather than simply a pitfall. My sense of the cause for this difference involves the Masters. Theosophy preaches that they (They?) are far above us in evolution, paragons of virtue and knowledge, and that only such beings are qualified to explore the paranormal in practical ways. The rest of us should devote ourselves to study and service, and some lifetime or other we might attract the attention of a Master-- and that will signify that we are ready to learn something practical. The Cayce approach minimizes the importance of Masters, emphasizes the Christ Consciousness as an ever-present guide, and encourages people to balance physical, mental and spiritual aspects of the path. It regards psychic faculties as ordinary and unremarkable, to be used with caution but without exaggerated anxiety. Hope this is responsive, Martin. Cheers Paul From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Wed Aug 28 18:35:46 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:35:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Pre-HPB-TS In-Reply-To: <199608281702.TAA29541@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > I wonder whether anyone would have heard of the Theosophical Society had she > not been one of the founders. Research into science, philosophy and religion > would have remained the passtime of a few. It is understandable that the TS > feels unconsciously that returning to its pre-HPB origins would mean a > further dwindling of membership. Once the clamorous aspects of Masters, > secret doctrines and all that are removed, little is left for those who > hanker after a belief. > Yet, it had its useful purpose to bring home a grand vision on life to the > masses for whatever it is worth. What do you mean by 'pre-HPB origins'? What are those? Do you in fact mean 'HPB origins'? If this is what you mean then we cannot avoid any references to HPB. It's premature to speak about it in past tense. I believe HPB's legacy in its entirety (not just The Secret Doctrine that has not been read by many theosophists) is the only thing that binds (loosely) all theosophists together. Everything else is questioned and disputed, including Masters. It's not clear if TS's sticking to the original HPB programme would contribute into growth of the membership. But it is certain, as has been shown by others on this list (esp. Jeryy HE), that deviation from the original programme did contribute into its decline. For some people preservation of the theosophical movement is not important at all; what's important, is preservation of the pure spirit of theosophy, that cannot perish as HPB gave so strong an impulse to it. As to the formally declared three objectives, I have asserted earlier and repeat it again that the movement failed to implement those, and is not going in the foreseeable future to fix it (social workers, scientists, and politicians are those who are REALLY working toward those objectives while what theosophists are doing in this area is just irresponsible and idle talk); if it's going to survive it needs to reinvent itself,--which again brings us back to HPB. From RIhle@aol.com Wed Aug 28 22:45:56 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 18:45:56 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Message-Id: <960828184556_271612485@emout09.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Pre-HPB-TS Max writes> >It's not clear if TS's sticking to the original HPB programme >would contribute into growth of the membership. But it is >certain, as has been shown by others on this list (esp. Jeryy HE), that >deviation from the original programme did contribute into its decline. > Richard Ihle writes> Max, may I ask you to elaborate further on what you mean by "original HPB programme" and what the "deviation" from it was? Are you talking about her ES instructions? If you are talking about the general TS, I can see how THE THREE OBJECTS could be considered an original programme, but not really how it could be considered an HPB programme. I have the impression that many of the early people were substantial in their own right and felt that they were coming together more or less on equal footing to form a society rather than to become HPB's disciples. HPB and her "Master-derived" doctrines soon became dominant even in the general TS, of course, but it seems to me that she would not have bothered setting up an ES if she had thought the outer organization would be better off by dumping its broader Truth-Seeking character. (In other words, she was probably in a position just convert the whole thing if she had wanted to.) I believe it was JRC who once listed the topics discussed at one of the early meetings, and they certainly seemed to have ranged far and wide. My own opinion is that decline in membership etc. is the result of the Outer Society's gradual "deviation" over the years from being the natural "nucleus" for those who are willing to at least consider the validity of all theosophical ideas. (Here I mean ~generic theosophy~: "knowledge which at least originally derives from transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight, or higher perception.") The doctrines found in HPB's writings will probably always remain the most important component of this, of course; however, allowing HPB's super-recondite contribution to little-by-little simply become known AS ~Theosophy~ does not seem to me like a membership-building strategy. Indeed, HPB was wise, it seems to me, by deciding to keep the big Truth-Seeking Gates to the general TS wide open. She was content, it seems to me, to first get as many people as possible inside and then just take her designated percentage through the Doctrinal Doors. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the modern version of the Theosophical Society is more or less on the verge of completely reversing this approach. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Wed Aug 28 18:20:04 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 18:17:04 -0300 From: Subject: Historic Jesus Priority: normal Message-Id: Hi Jerry, Abrantes: >>BOOK III, chapter V (191,217) page 210 HPB states that Paul was >>the only apostle to receive gnosis from Jesus. But at chapter >>III (116,145) page 134 she says that Jesus taught magi to John, >>and at chapter IV (153,185) page 167 she says that Jesus teach >>his gnosis to SOME disciples (more than one disciple). >>So, what did HPB want to say? How many disciples receive Jesus >>gnosis from Jesus himself? Jerry, you referred to two passages that I mentioned: "There was but one apostle of Jesus worthy of that name, and that was Paul."(II:241) and "with the exception, perhaps of John, it does not seem that he (Jesus) had initiated any other apostle". (II: 147) The last one is not difficult to find because if my page 210=your page 241, and my page 134=your page 147. Then my page 167 probably is around your 180 and 198 pages (around 13 and 31 pages of difference) at chapter IV. Yes, you are correct. I mistaked when mentioned that II:241 there is the word . But indeed this seems clear to me, because at chapter II (start60, end 110) page 86 HPB mentions that Paul was initiated in greek mysteries. She also refers to 2Cor12:3, and cites Cyril of Jerusalem (Cathecheses xiv,26), concluding that Paul was initiated by Jesus through visions (even though the word never appear at this passages...) Jerry wrote: >1. She considers the Biblical Jesus to be mythical, patterned >after other mythical and legendary figures. So HPB are saying that ALL four gospels are a forgery. This person, biblical Jesus never existed. She recognices only the existence of another Jesus, living one century before, as told by Toldoth. Correct? Toldoth have a passsage that says: >Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. >When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he >had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to >pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk[9], for it was a plant more than a tree, and >on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His >body shall not remain all night upon the tree." They buried him outside the city. Observe the passage . This is exactly what we read in Matthew 27:45 and Matthew 27:62. What is the most ancient text? Toldoth or gospel of Matthew? What did ? Abrantes: >I think that HPB are opposing two heresies within the judaism: >the old nazarenes (Peter is included here) and the new heresy: >the christianity (Jesus is included here, HPB says that Jesus >was a nazaren reformer). JHE wrote: >Yes. I think HPB is saying that the historical Jesus of Syria >was a Nazarene reformer. This is not the biblical Jesus, but the talmudic Jesus, correct? Abrantes: >BUT at page 139 HPB describes the gnostic system of >Basilides,the follower of doctrines of Matthew and Peter (???) >(references to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VII,XVII) and >refers to him as teaching the correct doctrine. So, now, Peter >(Basilides reflects his doctrines in accordance with Clement) >and Jesus (the false Messiah of Codex) has the same doctrine. We >have a problem here do you agree? Jerry replied: >You will have to quote the passage so that I can find it, else I >cannot comment on it specifically. The passage: "Basilides stated that he took ALL HIS DOCTRINES from the apostle Matthew and PETER, through Glaucias, his disciple" chapter III (start116,end145) page 139. Probably it corresponds to your page II:152. Jerry mentions that the gospel of Matthew used by Basilides was different from that used by church. But this is not the point. The point here is that HPB recognices that Basilides preached the correct doctrine and follows the doctrines that learned from Peter. But at BOOK III,chapter IV (153,185) page 163 HPB writes that Peter, the apostle of circumcision, preached the doctrines opposed to Paul, and describes 2Peter 2:18-31 as a example of such discord. At chapter II(60,110) page 87 she states that Peter saw Paul as magician, a man polluted with the gnosis, the wisdom of greek mysteries. Again she opposes Paul and Peter. Abrantes: >Unveiled Isis BOOK III chapter III (116-145) page 119 HPB >reproduce Toldoth that states that Peter was contemporary to >Jesus. Some lines before, at same chapter HPB refers to Christ >of Paul (who is the authorship???) and agrees that Peter lived >under Nero reign. So Jesus never can be lived one century >before. JHE replied: >The Talmudic Peter lived one century before. The Biblical Peter >lived under Nero's reign. In another mail I develop the argument that biblical Peter founded the church in Rome at first century, AND NO RESPECTABLE HISTORIAN REFUSE THIS FACT. So, biblical Peter lived at first century. And HPB recognices, mentioning the Talmud that Jesus and Peter was contemporany. So how can she neglect the historic evidences about Peter? (the references are given in another e-mail) Abrantes From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 28 22:19:12 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:19:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Pre-HPB-TS? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , Maxim Osinovsky writes >if it's going to survive it needs to reinvent >itself,--which again brings us back to HPB. .. and forward to Theosophy International, or something similar. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 28 22:21:18 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:21:18 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Cosimano In-Reply-To: <960827132041_510889807@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960827132041_510889807@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Dear Anti-Christ, >May I refer you to the very fine print at the bottom of page 768 of our >contract wherein it states clearly that I am entitled to 15% of all revenue >in earthly sales, 50% of all infernal sales, 20% of all interplanetary sales >as well as 10% on the rental of the Ark of the Covenant. > >Chuck the Heretic Heaven! (Thas' a *bad* word here). Someone must have sneaked some ambrosia into my vodka and brimstome! From pmmkien@main.com Thu Aug 29 02:28:13 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:28:13 -0500 From: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz) Message-Id: <199608290214.VAA03223@main.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Stephen Dicke Stephen Dicke writes, >How do I put a question to those on the list? My questions are this... >I am especially a fan of two areas in theosophical history: > 1. philosophy of J. Krishnamurti > 2. "pseudo"-science (alchemy of Bessant, Leadbeater & Hodson > and study of "paranormal" electromagnetic measurements to > be exact). >Are there any others with interests in either of these two? Are >there any lists that cater to these areas? Can anyone help me >here? > For an interesting Krishnamurti discussion group, try "listening-l", connected loosly with the Berlin branch of the Krishnamurti Foundation. Address: http://flp.cs.tu-berlin.de:1895. Paul K. From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 29 04:43:30 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:43:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Pre-HPB-TS In-Reply-To: <960828184556_271612485@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Richard Ihle writes> > Max, may I ask you to elaborate further on what you mean by "original HPB > programme" and what the "deviation" from it was? Are you talking about her > ES instructions? If you are talking about the general TS, I can see how THE > THREE OBJECTS could be considered an original programme, but not really how > it could be considered an HPB programme. I meant two opening HPB's articles in the very first issue of The Theosophist (somewhere in her Collected Writings), one about Theosophy and another about Theosophical Society. As far as I can remember, she speaks there about 'abstract Theosophy' (in the spirit of Ammmonias Saccas and Plotinus) embracing all creeds but not embraced by any of them. Since perhaps nobody except HPB was able to make sense of 'abstract Theosophy,' it was simplified to mean 'three objects.' HPB herself in her many later expositions of the basic principles of Theocophy reduced it to the three objects. > My own opinion is that decline in membership etc. is the result of the Outer > Society's gradual "deviation" over the years from being the natural "nucleus" > for those who are willing to at least consider the validity of all > theosophical ideas. (Here I mean ~generic theosophy~: "knowledge which at > least originally derives from transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight, > or higher perception.") The doctrines found in HPB's writings will probably > always remain the most important component of this, of course; however, > allowing HPB's super-recondite contribution to little-by-little simply become > known AS ~Theosophy~ does not seem to me like a membership-building strategy. I understand Theosophy in the same way as HPB (please see above, and also your definition of 'generic theosophy'), which does not mean HPB's writings. In a nutshell, (this is my own interpretation that should agree with HPB's) Theosophy is "Know thyself" applied to an individual man while Theosophical Society in the perfect world would mean same applied to humanity. In this sence Theosophy is not a doctrine. However, I do not mean that HPB's writings do not contain Theosophy. They do, unlike almost all other books on Theosophy. As a Sufi said, nothing expressed in words is truth. This applies to most books on Theosophy, however, does not exactly apply to at least some of the HPB's writings as they are not just words--in the same sense as "Om mani padme hum" is not the same as its supposed translation "Oh, jewel in the lotus." It's my estimate that around 20% of The Secret Doctrine are not plain words. From saf@angel.elektra.ru Thu Aug 29 01:36:36 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:25:21 From: "Uri Macnev" Message-Id: <199608290527.AA23348@angel.elektra.ru> Subject: astral vs etheric Hello! ========================= * Forwarded by Uri Macnev * From : Kay Ziatz ========================= For: Jerry Schueler Subj: astral vs etheric Hello! >I found something you disagree with -- the definition in the glossary of >"etheric". J> I just checked this, and you are correct. She uses the formula J> etheric=astral, which is kinda weird. I wonder where she got J> that from? She implies that it comes from the SD, but it is J> likely just her interpretation, because I have never got J> such an idea from the SD. Anyway, using the cosmic HPB writes in vol.III (. called "Astral body") writes that astral supports life & (sic!) linga-sharira couldn't exist in vacuum. It may mean that it may be etheric. She also writes in the same volume that L.Sh. can't travel very far and exteriorization of L.Sh. may cause damage to health. She advices to sent mayavirupa instead of L.Sh. L.Sh or astral can be damaged by blade, and a blade itself and not it's astral damages. But mayavirupa can't be damaged such a way (see . "subtle bodies"). Astral body is molecular, unless whatever ETHERIC it could be. (. "astral & ego). Also on a diagram Astral is situated between physical & kama. (all qoutations in reverse translation). All this may mean that HPB's L.Sh=astral is etheric, and kama-rupa is astral. But in vol.I she writes "our globe is still in it's kama-rupa state - astral desire body of Ahamkara.". So she's probaply not constant in use of these terms through 3 volumes. Konstantin. (Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru) From annasb@ismennt.is Thu Aug 29 02:52:58 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:52:58 GMT From: Anna S Bjornsdottir & Einar Adalsteinsson Message-Id: <199608290252.CAA28083@rvik.ismennt.is> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: On understanding and insight. Some thoughts on understanding and insight. I want to share with you all some thoughts. What I say is not the truth, not even a truth. They are only my thoughts, so don't believe it! I think that we should probe a little into what it is "to understand". Usually we say that we understand this or that, and then we are pretty content about it. We hear something, and we understand that, something vague is explained to us, or we figure somthing out, and then we have understood that bit. In this way we think that we can collect so much understanding, as we go on with life, that we will be pritty soaked with understanding when we get old. But is it so? Is understanding related to accumulated knowledge or logical and analytical thinking, or is it somthing entirely different? What really happnes within, when we come upon a real big understanding? Don't look at me. Look inside yourself an find out on your own. I will try to tell you what I think I find when I look inside. I think real understanding is a state of mind. It usually comes as a flash, an insight, and then it's gone. What remains after it is gone, is only a memory of understanding, something I now think I undestand. But the memory is dull compared to the real moment of insight, and it works as a drug on your mind. You get easily addicted to what you think you have onderstood, which is what we call our opinions or views. We cherish our views, fend them and promote them, even kill for them. But the moment of understanding or insight is entirely different. There is a bliss, our body and our entire being rejoices in delight and ecstacy for a very short moment. There is a total freedom and unconditioned love involved. Not only do we undestand the problem at hand, but we simply understand everything for a fleeting moment. But then it's gone. In most cases we dont even notice. Our mind is all on the memory, the thing that we think we were so fortunate to understand. But the insight is all gone. No bliss, no ecstasy, no freedon, no love. Everything is as before, eccept for the new toy of mind, new piece of opinion to cherish, new attachment to the drug of conviction. We see this all around us, in other people, but can we see this in ourselves? So when you next try to understand something, be aware of the symtoms of real insight - inner delight, feeling of freedom, loving kindess and total unlimited insight. It will be there, every time, if you only notice it. Try it out for yourself. Dn't take my word for it (or anyone else's for that matter). Or as I said before...DOOOON'T YOOOOU BEEELEEEVE IT!!!! Einar, from the land of ice and fire.... From wichm@xs4all.nl Thu Aug 29 11:29:11 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:29:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608291129.NAA17291@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: discipleship/spiritualism Liesel wrote: "I think no one is ever initiated who has not also acquired a certain amount of ethical beliefs and behavior " Gurdjieff? Beware of the one who strives for unselfishness? >Paul wrote: >In less than one percent of the readings, discarnate or angelic >spirits spoke through Cayce in mediumistic fashion. But by and >large the readings discourage Spiritualism, especially >automatic writing and ouija board use-- warning that possession >is a real danger. Funny, that always one set of spirits should speak out against the others! For proud possessors of a sound-card, listen to sound-clips of discarnate spirit-voices at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/deathnoe.html. These voices are claimed to have manifested themselves in space. Michael MICHAEL http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Thu Aug 29 12:57:58 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:57:58 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960830071014.1efffbfe@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence Keith wrote a vew days ago >The first page has the interesting injuction: "The Mind is the Slayer of >the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB > >All that capitalization implies personification or divinity or both. Or maybe principles that generalise what each individual goes through. Milestones in the core curriculum, so to speak. >"Kill thy desires ... strangle thy sins ... kill in thyself all memory of >past experiences." - HPB > >Isn't this a little violent? This self-abuse and flagellation of the >products of consciousness can be seen in poetic or allegorcial, yet it >still seems a little morbid to the modern mind. I'd agree completely. Taken literally, the result could quite possibly be worse than the desires you're trying to kill. Are we really being called to engage in violence? In not-love? I think not. It's got to be all in the understanding of what those words are pointing to, given that they are already in a language that is foreign to the environment these aphorisms grew out of, and are not well equipped for the job at that. >The modern view is to sit down with your desires and sins and have a nice >chat. They are only archetypes and like members of a dysfuctional family >can "recover" and enter into more harmonious relationships. Is this >ascetism necessary? I hate to harp on the theme of misguided purity, but >hating your sins? Hate seems to breed hate and focusing on sins would only >make them have more power, in today's lingo. Transform the base into gold >maybe as in the alchemical mode. Couldn't these senses and sins be >harnassed for some higher purpose/ > >I think she probably has somthing more subtle in mind of course, but she >does insist on KILL, KILL, KILL past hope of resurrection all our little >human frailites etc. What an order! I can't go through with it! I am >glad I have seven lives to go. (Cheshire grin:) Good on you, Keith. A bit of a smile can dissipate an otherwise grim prospect! And lead us nearer the truth as well, I'd bet. This all reminds me of something Geoffrey Hodson used to say, that whenever you come across violence or obscenity in ancient scriptures, it's often a hint to go beneath the surface and look at a deeper level. A breaking point for the shell of intellect, not unlike a Zen koan. We could start digging with desire. Think of the quality as well as the end-goal of the following which can all come within the scope of the word "desire" in ordinary useage:= 1 To get money from somebody else to buy more drugs, to the extent that you don't care if you club them senseless in the process. 2 To have more drugs so as to experience relief from life or withdrawal symptoms, or to change your mind state. 3 To want to be in love, more than loving the specific person. 4 To protect the people in your family. 5 To be creative and experience creativity. 6 To wield power over others. 7 To do a job well. 8 To be loved and liked by others. 9 To help in building something for your community. 10 To feel the power of sexual experience coursing through you. 11 To experience union with the divine. 12 To rescue all living beings from the illusion and pain of life. So when we think of killing out desires, do we mean ALL of these? If so, we'd knock the motivation for the Bodhisattva vow out of the running, for one. There's clearly a vast spectrum of kinds of desire. Some are negative, dark small and destructive, and others are positive, light-filled, wide-ranging and nurturing in their effect. Another factor is, who or what is doing the desiring? Psychogenesis has a very powerful explanatory or at least descriptive value, here. Your fragment of the universal consciousness is temporarily trapped in states such as "I really want a cigarette", while they last. On the other hand, the focal point of "your" consciousness can shift and widen immeasurably when you are resting in a beautiful natural environment and begin to feel at peace, and one with, all that is around you. Likewise with meditation. This trapping is typical of addiction in all its forms, even to little things which are normally never called addiction, and are what I believe the word "attachment" is referring to, in yogic and other texts. Now, what about "killing"? Surely there are skilful means for ending our thralldom, and they must be underpinned by love taken in a wide sense, ie a deep understanding of the life-manifestations that make up a human being, coupled with a life-nurturing attitude and feeling. This is not the same thing as pandering to all the impulses that might arise, but is a healing, unifying, harmonising thing. If it seems to come from outside yourself, like grace, as it often does in the beginning, that's OK; it's just a matter of where the centre of your awareness or point of identification is for the time being. These means might need to include some very practical things such as taking part in an anger-management support group, or therapy to modify abusive behaviour patterns, because it seems that addictions and ingrained destructive patterns involve the most material aspects of our makeup. An example is the way that drugs alter brain cell receptor sites so that we physically crave the drug. Consciousness, or the I focus, can be imagined as being embedded in the complex of feelings, behaviours and attitudes that are this multi-level trap or funnel that we can't get out of for the time being. In theosophical terms, addiction structures manifest at physical, etheric, astral and mental levels. I'm generalising here, and it would be interesting to go into this in more depth. There are other ways we can mobilise energy within ourselves, or invoke it from "above", in our search for emancipation. And, having made a case for love above, I have to say there ARE times when a strong "no" or current of applied energy, are just the right thing to dissipate a recalcitrant formation, in yourself or in your children. This isn't necessarily killing anything, or even doing violence, but rather rearrangement and transmutation, matching the amount of energy to the resistance. Have pity on the poor stuff you are made of! It could be quite a release for the elemental substance in your vehicles from pathological structures and states that you have subscribed to for years, if not lives, as well as for you yourself! So I'm not saying to love yourself in the usual meaning of that phrase, but rather something more all-encompassing and life-affirming. I was putting my mind back, fancifully, to the time when something like "Kill out desire." was first said to a pupil, and it struck me it probably had a lot of surprise value in the context that killing was something that people did readily to others, but never dreamed of doing to something inside themselves. The liberating power of surprise, again like a koan. A thought on strangling your sins. First, as many of us will know, the word "sin" meant originally a falling short of the mark, but a clear and likely meaning for this (to me) is based on the observation that where attention goes, energy flows. If attention, ie the focal point of our consciousness, is withdrawn from a complex, a major source of energy for sustaining it will be cut off - strangled, so to speak. Not done with violent intent. It's rather like Patanjali's admonition to "think on the opposite". Re the memory bit, in Keith's quotation above, one of the characteristics of "spiritual" awareness is the transcendence of memory, for instance seeing everything as if it were new, even if you've seen it every day of your life. So what dies here, would be the ability of memory to trap your consciousness. Hmmm. Interesting stuff. Well, that's about enough for now. I can't help feeling that it's easy to forget that our mystical traditions are based very firmly in ordinary reality (whatever meanings you like, for that), and relate to real things in the field of consciousness of ordinary people. A bit of mystique and obscurity almost inevitably spring up when the time, or the level of insight are far from where we perceive ourselves to be. After all, one of the main things about theosophy, as a human endeavour and capacity, is gnosis - the coming, unfolding ability to KNOW for ourselves. Our beloved ancient texts are maps of the way to that place. Murray Member TI and the TS in NZ From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Thu Aug 29 14:01:22 1996 Date: 29 Aug 96 10:01:22 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Tomato Soup Recipe Message-Id: <960829140122_72723.2375_FHP42-1@CompuServe.COM> Hi folks, For those of you who may have planted tomato plants in the spring and have a bountiful crop overflowing your countertop (as I do), you may want to try this gourmet recipe. Fresh Tomato Soup 3T butter 1 small onion, chopped finely 3 lbs. ripe tomatoes, peeled, chopped 1/2 c. cream or milk 1 t salt 1/2 t nutmeg 1/4 t white pepper 1/8 t cinnamon Saute onion in butter till soft. Stir in tomatoes & juice. Cover: simmer 15 min. Remove from heat. Puree in blender until smooth. Return to pot. Stir in spices. Heat to simmer; do not boil. Add cream or milk and garnish with parsley. Makes 6 servings. Is this Theosophy? No, but the list's slow and maybe somebody out there can use this. -Ann E. Bermingham From Drpsionic@aol.com Thu Aug 29 15:19:23 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:19:23 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960829111828_467935544@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: To Cosimano Watch your language! There are children present! Chuck the Heretic From mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu Thu Aug 29 16:13:55 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:13:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: On understanding and insight. In-Reply-To: <199608290252.CAA28083@rvik.ismennt.is> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Anna S Bjornsdottir & Einar Adalsteinsson wrote: > I think that we should probe a little into what it is "to understand". > Usually we say that we understand this or that, and then we are pretty > content about it. We hear something, and we understand that, something vague > is explained to us, or we figure somthing out, and then we have understood > that bit. In this way we think that we can collect so much understanding, as > we go on with life, that we will be pritty soaked with understanding when we > get old. But is it so? Is understanding related to accumulated knowledge or > logical and analytical thinking, or is it somthing entirely different? What > really happnes within, when we come upon a real big understanding? Don't > look at me. Look inside yourself an find out on your own. Einar, Thanks for sharing your thoughts about understanding. Very interesting. To my knowledge and experience, true and full understanding of a thing means having ready access to its mental image or picture that is complete with both underlying principles and details. It is a direct and very detailed awareness of the thing. Some illumined minds are able to grasp the image in its general outlines but are lost amidst the details (e.g. 'silly saints' as defined by Gourdjieff); minds bent on analysis may possess a wealth of detail without any vision of the whole (many scientists). So true understanding requires both insight faculty and analytical skills. Consequently, it is something that emerges when both spiritual mind and ordinary mind are at work. I believe that understanding does not come for free. For example, our Planetary Logos is known not to have full understanding of lower planes, but It is working hard through deva kingdom and human kingdom to attain that kind of understanding. In the same way, we are not aware of what's going on in our bodies on cellular level (we have a pretty good theoretical understanding but there is no direct awareness), but at some time we will be (see e.g. publications about Sri Aurobindo work). From ramadoss@eden.com Thu Aug 29 23:00:47 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:00:47 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Stephen Dicke In-Reply-To: <199608290214.VAA03223@main.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Paul M.M. Kieniewicz wrote: > Stephen Dicke writes, > > >How do I put a question to those on the list? My questions are this... > >I am especially a fan of two areas in theosophical history: > > 1. philosophy of J. Krishnamurti > > 2. "pseudo"-science (alchemy of Bessant, Leadbeater & Hodson > > and study of "paranormal" electromagnetic measurements to > > be exact). > >Are there any others with interests in either of these two? Are > >there any lists that cater to these areas? Can anyone help me > >here? > > > > For an interesting Krishnamurti discussion group, try "listening-l", > connected loosly with the Berlin branch of the Krishnamurti Foundation. > Address: http://flp.cs.tu-berlin.de:1895. > > Paul K. Hi To subscribe to the Krishnaji mailing list listening-l, first send a message to: LISTSERV@ZRZ.TU-BERLIN.DE with SUB LISTENING-L XXXXXX in the subject line. XXXX is your name. If I were to subscribe, it would be: SUB LISTENING-L RAMADOSS ...ramadoss From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 30 00:05:14 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:05:14 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960829200513_468278167@emout16.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence Murray, There is much to be said for killing off desire, but not until you are 105 and there is no point in desiring anyway. To even consider such a thing earlier is to become such a self-righteous bore that no one with half a brain would waste their time with you. You're right. All this material has to be looked at from the standpoint of real life. And let us not forget that it was written for the benefit of the good Victorians, who could get very weird about things. Chuck the Heretic From Drpsionic@aol.com Fri Aug 30 00:17:03 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:17:03 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960829200516_468278203@emout08.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Tomato Soup Recipe Ann, thanx. One can always use good tomato soup. Chuck the Heretic From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 30 00:42:30 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:42:30 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: <6b$M3jA2jjJyEwv5@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Voice of Silence - silence In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19960830071014.1efffbfe@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <1.5.4.16.19960830071014.1efffbfe@iprolink.co.nz>, Murray Stentiford writes >After all, one of the main things about theosophy, as a human endeavour and >capacity, is gnosis - the coming, unfolding ability to KNOW for ourselves. >Our beloved ancient texts are maps of the way to that place. > >Murray >Member TI and the TS in NZ Oh joy! Reality breakthrough! Right on - MAPS, not holy writ! Thanks, Murray, we all need these little reminders. Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 30 00:32:18 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:32:18 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Tomato Soup Recipe In-Reply-To: <960829140122_72723.2375_FHP42-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960829140122_72723.2375_FHP42-1@CompuServe.COM>, "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes >Is this Theosophy? No, but the list's slow and maybe somebody out there can use >this. > >-Ann E. Bermingham Maybe you could call it Theosophical Tomato Soup - then it's "legit." Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 30 00:34:57 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:34:57 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: To Cosimano In-Reply-To: <960829111828_467935544@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960829111828_467935544@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Watch your language! There are children present! > >Chuck the Heretic Sorry son. From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 30 00:37:30 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:37:30 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: On understanding and insight. In-Reply-To: <199608290252.CAA28083@rvik.ismennt.is> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608290252.CAA28083@rvik.ismennt.is>, Anna S Bjornsdottir & Einar Adalsteinsson writes >Einar, from the land of ice and fire.... Welcome to the land of .... ummm .... errr .... well, welcome anyway! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From wichm@xs4all.nl Thu Aug 29 10:08:03 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:08:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608291008.MAA05766@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "The Mind is the Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB > First of all one would question whether HPB sees this correctly. Unless it implies that the human mind, limited by its evolutionary brain-development, is not the instrument to assess reality. I object to the word "slay" in the second sentence. To attempt to slay the mind is tentamount to failure. The mind should learn its place, become quiet when matters beyond its reach are involved. Then the disciple may hear the whisper of silence. Michael From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 29 01:13:50 1996 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:13:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Historic Jesus In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 In message , ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >In another mail I develop the argument that biblical Peter founded the >church in Rome at first century, AND NO RESPECTABLE HISTORIAN REFUSE >THIS FACT. So, biblical Peter lived at first century. Many respectable historians would now question this, and say it may not be fact. If fact, then how is it that Paul, who was under house arrest (staying with Linus, later said to become Bp. of Rome) never mentions the presence of Peter in the city? Paul mentions Peter (Kephas) often enough at other times. It is inconceivable that he would not mention the presence of Peter in Rome at the same time as he himself was there. Neither does he mention that Peter was ever there. He does not mention him in Rome at all. There is NO historical evidence that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome outside of *later* Church history claims made by the Roman Church. The speech of Peter is said, in the gospel, to be noticeably Galilean, with the inference that he may have been as simple a man as the gospels portray him. If so, he probably spoke only Galiliean Aramaic (different from Judean aramaic) and would have been more at home in the Persian Empire, where Aramaic was widely spoken, and not the Roman Empire. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 30 04:00:19 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:00:19 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608300507.BAA11462@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: italian e-mail Dear theos-l list members, I've been trying to decode C. Carli letter. I can understand some of it. (Elizabeth at the Olcott library, is also trying to decode it with the help of a dictionary, but she says she hasn't gotten very far with it yet.) I have a friend in my house who's Italian, & I showed her the letter. Unfortunately she has Altzheimer's. So she could read & understand perfectly what the letter said, but she couldn't translate it into English very well. Besides it talks about mailing lists and web sites & she's not got the faintest idea of what that is, & useless to try to explain. Anyway, C. Carli apparently wants to sell us, at no charge, some esoteric information, which is probably on his/her web page. But I can't access the web page. I tried. Apparently the web page or e-mail is the product of Esonet, which is a group of http://www.agora.stm.it/esonet/iscriz.htm students of the esoteric, I think. The group is divulging (I think) relative to the body of commentaries transmitted by the Masters, the White Brotherhood, HPB,H e N ?, Roerich, Bailey, & a couple of others I don't know. With the help of my friend, I wrote back Ciao, C. Carli Nulla persona di theos-l conosca la lingua italiana, alora non posso retornare una resposta. Mi dispiacci. Conosco francese, y tedeschi. Saluti Liesel I think Ciao means goodbye, but I used is as hello. Then I said that nobody on theos-l knows Italian, so we can't answer him/er. I'm sorry. I know French & German. To your health (Mary told me to write that, we use "salute' to drink wine with ... which I haven't done for 15 years, but then, Mary does know Italian. She jabbers it at me sometimes & I sometimes jabber back, because it's a lot like French.) Maybe they'll send us back an answer in French. Then I can tell you what it says, & I think several others on this mailing list can as well. Liesel From pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu Fri Aug 30 15:48:07 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 96 11:48:07 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Message-Id: <199608301548.LAA23233@leo.vsla.edu> Subject: ARE membership In light of information in the current Venture Inward, I have to revise my hypothesis about the source of ARE leaders' openness to scholarship about Cayce. ARE membership has had a bizarre history. Although it is now almost 10 times what it was 30 years ago, it is also less than a third what it was 7 years ago: 1966-- 3300 1967-- 6600 (after Stearns's The Sleeping Prophet) 1978-- 17000 (when I joined) 1982-- 20000 (Hugh Lynn Cayce dies) 1989-- 100000 (thanks to a mass direct mailing program offering inexpensive trial memberships) 1992-- 40000 (since very few of the above recruits renewed) 1995-- 30000 1996-- 28000 So this is not a group that can be confident about expanding, contrary to my supposition! However, I think the leaders are still confident that public awareness of Cayce is expanding, is mainly positive, and he can bear skeptical scrutiny. In response to Chuck regarding the change from Hugh Lynn's day. This was a major theme in Charles Thomas's remarks. One thing he said that seems obvious in retrospect, although it hadn't occurred to me, was that for most of the ARE's history it has been dominated by people who knew Edgar and had readings from him. As long as that generation was in power, a critical or skeptical approach to the readings was not likely to get far. They were too intimately connected to people's lives to be subjected to much scholarly scrutiny. But now that most members never knew Edgar or had readings themselves, there is a new openness to scholarly investigation. Cheers Paul From euser@euronet.nl Fri Aug 30 21:45:05 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:45:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608302145.XAA04361@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: authorial reluctance (reply to Kim) Kim> For the text itself (Poona edition) it is available on the net in ITRANS format (both devanagari and transliterated). Interesting;I will have a look at it. Do you now the URL? Kim> BTW, I'm a great fan of the lectures on the BG by T. Subba Row. These are on my list of books to read. >Kim> (The idea I had in my mind was the comment in a ML, that the human principles cannot be studied apart from the universal, a point very often forgot in study, I fear.) Yes, that's a good point to keep in mind always: we're an integral part in the universal Field, only we often *think* we're not and *that's* Maya IMO. In friendship, Kim In friendship, Martin From euser@euronet.nl Fri Aug 30 21:45:08 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:45:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser@euronet.nl (Martin_Euser) Message-Id: <199608302145.XAA04372@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Cayce & Psychism Paul wrote: >In response to Martin's request for further details concerning Cayce's approach to psychic powers etc.: I sense a much more positive attitude generally in A.R.E. circles towards clairvoyance, telepathy, astrology, auras, kundalini, etc. than in Theosophical circles. There are frequent workshops and conferences at the headquarters on such things-- an upcoming one on regression, for example-- and the whole point of the study group program is a practical, daily approach to the spiritual life. Although Cayce is just as insistent as HPB that the psychic cart not be put before the spiritual/intellectual horse, he still sees psychism as an integral and valued part of life rather than simply a pitfall. This is more in touch with modern times, I guess. Paul>My sense of the cause for this difference involves the Masters. Theosophy preaches that they (They?) are far above us in evolution, paragons of virtue and knowledge, and that only such beings are qualified to explore the paranormal in practical ways. If I remember correctly, the Masters never implied the above. It is true that investigation of the psychic realm has been discouraged, maybe too much so. There has always existed a fear in the TSs that explorers would be drawn into the pit. Maybe it's time to reevaluate this position. In any case, if we are to know ourselves, then the psychic realm must be included, especially in our current era of OBE's and NDE's and budding psychic clairvoyance, etc. That is, TSs cannot close their eyes for what's happening in the world. Many people are interested in spirituality in a general sense and also in a more specific sense as relating to so-called ESP. Paul> The rest of us should devote ourselves to study and service, and some lifetime or other we might attract the attention of a Master-- and that will signify that we are ready to learn something practical. Hm. Is that the official position of the TSs? I think that we are all ready to learn something practical *now*, not in some distant future! That's a real big mistake IMO. Otherwise Theosophy would equate with impractical dreaming. Paul> The Cayce approach minimizes the importance of Masters, emphasizes the Christ Consciousness as an ever-present guide, and encourages people to balance physical, mental and spiritual aspects of the path. It regards psychic faculties as ordinary and unremarkable, to be used with caution but without exaggerated anxiety. Sounds ok to me. P>Hope this is responsive, Martin. It sure is, Paul. Cheers Paul Cheers Martin From poulsen@dk-online.dk Sat Aug 31 03:46:13 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 01:46:13 -200 From: Kim Poulsen Message-Id: <01BB96DE.4DB2F320@ppp52.dk-online.dk> Subject: RE: authorial reluctance (reply to Kim) Encoding: 25 TEXT, 43 UUENCODE Kim> For the text itself (Poona edition) it is available on the net in ITRANS format (both devanagari and transliterated). Martin> Interesting;I will have a look at it. Do you now the URL? There should be a link on my favorite webpage ftp://jaguar.cs.utah.edu/private/sanskrit/sanskrit.html You will need a postscript viewer like Ghostview for the devanagari text, there is link for that as well. But check out the whole page, it's a gold mine. Kim> BTW, I'm a great fan of the lectures on the BG by T. Subba Row. Martin> These are on my list of books to read. They are brilliant, surpassed only by HPB herself in the 19th c., in my opinion. Adyar publishes a very affordable edition called "Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita". A few changes as usual, but nothing important. In friendship, Kim Attachment Converted: "C:\TEMP\WINMAIL5.DAT" From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 30 23:39:32 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 00:39:32 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: The WWW within In-Reply-To: <199608302145.XAA04372@mail.euronet.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608302145.XAA04372@mail.euronet.nl>, Martin_Euser writes >I think that we are >all ready to learn something practical *now*, not in some distant future! Indeed we are. Not just we who subscribe to the various lists, but anyone and everyone. The "Web Link" to "The Masters" is nothing more (nothing more!?) IMHO and IMH experience than a link through each and every human psyche to the knowledge of human wisdom stored, not in some "Akasic" record, but in the group mind/soul of the human race itself - the "collective unconscious" of Jungian psychology. It doesn't come free, though - we need to work at it. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From liesel@dreamscape.com Fri Aug 30 23:55:56 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:55:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608310103.VAA10504@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: prer HPB Theosophy Dear Michael, You've been saying 'Scuse me, but with a statement like that, I'm wondering what kind of theosophy you've been studying, if any. That's something I just can't agree with, most emphatically. The Theosophy I know is based on a number of tenets and beliefs, which stem from the Masters and HPB, to be sure, but which form a vibrant way of life in the minds & hearts of Theosophists, who've examined what's been written and have adapted whatever suited them. Their origin from our founders has very little to do with what they mean to a present day Theosophist. Theosophy is not a cult with the Masters & HPB at the head, it's a way of life lived by present day Theosophists. And, ideally, it's lived by the individual as he/she sees fit, & understands it, not as either the masters or HPB said it should be lived. They themselves told us to use our own common sense & to not heroworship them. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 00:36:33 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:36:33 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608310143.VAA12300@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: discipleship/spiritualism > >Liesel wrote: >"I think no one is ever initiated who has not also >acquired a certain amount of ethical beliefs and behavior " > >Gurdjieff? >Beware of the one who strives for unselfishness? Liesel says Gurdieff's statement, I think, is not at all a contradiction of what I said. A person who *strives* for unselfishness usually arrives at a sham version of it, and I would beware of them. Unselfisheness, I think, is not something you can strive for; it somehow just happens ... just as humility can be a real put up job. You're acting as if you were humble but it's not genuine. I think that's what Gurdieff warns against. It's gotta be real, not put on. > >>Paul wrote: >>In less than one percent of the readings, discarnate or angelic >>spirits spoke through Cayce in mediumistic fashion. But by and >>large the readings discourage Spiritualism, especially >>automatic writing and ouija board use-- warning that possession >>is a real danger. Liesel says, that Cayce quote fits in with the rest of the message. I've been told that automatic writing and ouija board is playing around and not a very valuable psychic endeavor. Theosophists think that just as well as does Cayce. We also agree that such actions, which are not under the control of the person to whom they appear can more easily lead to possession. The genuine spiritual development I had in mind, which includes ESP of a much higher order, is a faculty guided by the person who's using it. Such a one doesn't get possessed, because they know exactly how to act if some entity tries to possess him/her. So again there's no contradictiion that I can see. > >Funny, that always one set of spirits should speak out against the others! > >For proud possessors of a sound-card, listen to sound-clips of discarnate >spirit-voices at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/deathnoe.html. These voices are >claimed to have manifested themselves in space. > >Michael >MICHAEL >http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html > > >------------------------------ > From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 00:55:09 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:55:09 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608310202.WAA13143@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Ann B., Re: Tomato soup Thanks, Ann, I love tomato soup. I'll try out your recipe very soon. Liesel From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 03:44:03 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 23:44:03 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Kill out desire! - The end is near! Message-Id: <960831034402_74024.3352_BHT215-7@CompuServe.COM> Does anyone remember those cartoons that used to appear in magazines of the 50's and early 60's (pre-hippie, post beatnik) that showed a man in sackclothe and sandals with beard and dirty hair carrying a sign: "THE END IS NEAR". I seem to remember a lot of them. He represented a complete turning away from the I LUV LUCY consumerism of the time. He was a strange enigmatic figure who was ignored or made fun of, because he was so obviously our of step. He seems to me to represent the psychological type that Jung called the introverted intuitive and represented historically by the Old Testament prophets. If you remember the movie "Excalibur" by John Boorman (a favorite of mine), Lancelot goes from being the knight in shining armor to a flagelant iteneratant preacher with a small flock following him through the the devastation caused by his love affair with Guineverre which poisoned Camelot. He is similar reduced to obscurity that is less that useful and a little funny in a pitiable way. This type is alway out of time, a little ahead, a little behind. It comes to the same thing of not being "with it" in the current collective consciousness, but immersed in the inner world of the collective unconsciousness. A different voice, a different drummer but a necessity to follow despite everything. I wonder if this type is a little predictable in its wide swing from desire to preaching repentance. The apocalypse some of us envisioned as imminent in the 70's has been postponed a long time. As we reach the milenial tuning point, there will of course be a looking back, a rememberance a repentance, a refocus of energies toward the future The job of the repentant one seems not so much as to be self-flagelating in killing out desires, but to be useful again as he was destructive before. Namaste Keith Price From eldon@theosophy.com Sat Aug 31 08:13:15 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 01:13:15 -0700 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960831081315.0069e698@imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Michael: Here are some stray comments on the mind as the slayer of the Real, which your comments provide me an opportunity to say a few words... -- Eldon ---- >> "The Mind is the Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB >First of all one would question whether HPB sees this correctly. Unless it >implies that the human mind, limited by its evolutionary brain-development, >is not the instrument to assess reality. Or perhaps we might consider if we understand the statement correctly? There are many ways of considering this statement. Often a statement may have a subtle meaning that is hard to make sense of, without considering Eastern thought. >I object to the word "slay" in the second sentence. To attempt to slay the >mind is tentamount to failure. The mind should learn its place, become quiet >when matters beyond its reach are involved. Then the disciple may hear the >whisper of silence. You seem to be approaching what I consider to be the meaning of the statement. The mind "slays" reality when acting in the mode where it creates an external, objective world. Reality is slain, because it is distorted and veiled through this activity of mind. When we speak of silencing the mind, it is the same as quieting the desires. The mind can become out of control, and slay reality, and that activity of the mind needs to be tamed. The same is true of desires, where we're told to kill out all desire. It's not really killing out desire, but rather, in both cases -- that of the mind and that of desires -- the unseating of them as the controlling factor in our lives. That is, we shift the seat of awareness or volition from desires and mind, kama and lower manas, to something deeper within. We still think, we still feel, but both thought and feelings supplement other manners of experiencing life, rather than being the dominant, driving force in how we experience life. How do we slay the mind? How do we kill out desire? It's not by stopping thought, nor by stopping wanting to achieve things in the world. We slay by *withdrawing our attention*, by starving them of volitional energy, by having our seat of awareness, our first point of action, as arising from deeper within. The mind is slain when it understands *for us*, but stops pretending to be us, and stops as well fooling us with the notion that we are separate, independent individuals, poisoning us with its selfishness and "what's in it for me" motivations. The slaying comes from the death of it as an entity, the death of it as the center of volition, the withdrawal from it of being the prime mover in our constitution. Our thought life is as rich as ever, it's just that we are no longer identified with those thoughts. We have realized that we are not what we think, and the mind is "silenced" since it no longer takes center stage. From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 02:30:36 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 22:30:36 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Slay the Slayer - or make friends? Message-Id: <960831023036_74024.3352_BHT215-1@CompuServe.COM> From my viewpoint, when you ready to give up the personality to the soul, it won't seem lilke that. It's just a natural giving up to the higher forces. There is no violent sacrifice when you are doing something out of pure love. -Ann E. Bermingham I see your point, Ann. I guess the term slay and kill the MIND is not really the mind as consciousness, but the power it has to convince our real Selves that it is Reality. The thought producer covers too effectively the larger Cosmic Mind beyond the sense and distracts us into our ego games. I think I am hearing that compassion (love) is the Great Purity that joins in a via positiva as opposed to ascetism which is a via negativa. I would choose love over ascetisim anyday, but real compassion for humanity can be stiffled from my limited ego. In meditation we can hear and link to the Voice and the slaying and killing of the lower bodies becomes lost in our new concentration on the One. Our thoughts compete with the Voice of the Silence. Maybe for the Master, the lower thought producer is transformed and the Slayer can be a new friend and tool as in artistic creation for example. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 02:39:54 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 22:39:54 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Kill or remember memories of past lives Message-Id: <960831023954_74024.3352_BHT215-2@CompuServe.COM> I think I'll buy Ann's interpretation on all this, in a general sense. This "kill and control" mentality is typical of asceticism generally. If we are to kill all memory of past experiences, then what is the point of going deeply into the question of reincarnation, for example? Alan Keith: Well, I am finding for me that past lives remembered can want to live again. There is much talk in the Quest about the dangers of meditation as in visualizing a chord connecting to the center of the earth, for example. I am finding that my past life experience as the the sick child has somewhat obsessed and "possessed" me in my everyday reality. I am trying to decide if I need to get special help and feel I may be in what Cristina Grof calls a "spiritual emergency" of sorts. It seems we may forget past lives for very, very good reasons. Perhaps the mad houses are full of people overwhelmed by past life memories and psychological rememnants pushing there way into the present. Maybe it is best to look forward to humanity as a whole rather than dwelling self-centeredly on a so-called "past life". Yet there is a certain fatedness in all this. Who said amor fati? Love your fate, it is your inescapapable duty, your dharma, your mission. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 02:47:32 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 22:47:32 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Reply to Liesel Message-Id: <960831024731_74024.3352_BHT215-3@CompuServe.COM> <199608271530.LAA21435@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Come to think of it, on the other hand, we're taught that we incarnate to learn. If we kill out all desires & experiences, then we'll make the same mistakes over again next time. That makes me even more in favor of talking to it & about it, & changing how you think about it rather than killing it out. If you change it, then you remember approximately what it was like before you changed it, & why you were motivated to change it. Liesel .......................... Keith: I don't know if this is what your are getting at, but you have made me think about killing out ATTACHMENT to my desires, my past lives, my experiences and let them die to a DETACHMENT that includes humanity's desires, humanity's future lives, and experiences. When the ego is blown out, the being can choose Nirvana or Emptiness or to help human evolution. It seems that this is the goal of the Arhat, Bodhisattva etc to wait till all sentient life no longer needs to work on its individual self, but has returned to the Universal Self, which we experience dimly and remotely through the thing termed the Voice of the Silence. Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 03:07:07 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 23:07:07 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Reply to Alan Message-Id: <960831030707_74024.3352_BHT215-4@CompuServe.COM> >"Strangle thy sins" - this seems to give "sins" a kind of objective >existence of their own. But the word(s) from scripture which have been >rendered "sin" and then redefined by dogmatic theology mean nothing more >than "missing the target" or "getting it wrong." You can break the >arrow, and you can destroy the target, but you can't strangle the aim - >you can only try to correct it. So let's mend, not strangle. > >"Kill thy desires" - makes no sense at all, for if you want to do this, >you must set up a desire to kill your desires, which is absurd! > >Alan Yes it does seem like a dog (or dragon) chasing it tail. But this is supposed the very cause of suffering (according to Buddhism) that desire can only desire more, it can never be fullfilled once and for all, but only satiated and placated temporarily and HPB suggests that this placation makes it grow ever larger. The notion of sin, is not a pretty one. We have all discussed at length on theos-l and read elsewhere the big problem of "does evil exist in itself or as only a diminution of the GOOD." Sin as missin the mark suggest just not being good enough, but getting better with practice. Evil can be seen as the very essence of self-centered desire at the expense of the larger GOOD. It feeds like a parasite and converts GOOD to itself in the way vampires in myth spread vampirism and the way the HIV retrovirus converts helpful human immune cells to replicants of itself which eventually destroy the good host. The evil is spread covertly, indirectly and is never productive of anything but itself. Some has seen HIV as a metaphor for evil and an almost diabolic ability to evolve and mutate ahead of attempts to stop it by more advanced (?!) beings (humans). A certain stubborness seems to exist in evil it seems to always be there in the shadow, as shadow to make the light visible as "information". Where there is life there is information and the entropy that tells us there is entropy by giving us the arrow of time. Entropy is the measurement of information. (wow, I popped back into that old systems stuff without planning too) Non-dualism seems to suggest that there is no radical difference in the shadow and the light, they are the maya produced by our limited mind that discriminate and creates dualisms. This is small comfort to one who is suffering from a disease, yet it suggests that suffering may force an awareness of transcendence that may be brought to importance only by suffering. Without desire their would be no movement, no evolution, no dualism. I am remembering that Maya means not illusion, but "to measure, to cut, to discriminate, to dualize as me and not-me. To measure the measurer, to have the mirror look at itself. Zen seeks to achieve just such breakthroughs. And the subatomic model seems to present the same form of the looker affecting the looked at because they are not two things, but the snake looking at its tail. Namaste Keith Price Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 03:20:10 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 23:20:10 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Reply to Eldon Message-Id: <960831032009_74024.3352_BHT215-5@CompuServe.COM> Eldon: How do we slay the mind? How do we kill out desire? It's not by stopping thought, nor by stopping wanting to achieve things in the world. We slay by *withdrawing our attention*, by starving them of volitional energy, by having our seat of awareness, our first point of action, as arising from deeper within. The mind is slain when it understands *for us*, but stops pretending to be us, and stops as well fooling us with the notion that we are separate, independent individuals, poisoning us with its selfishness and "what's in it for me" motivations. The slaying comes from the death of it as an entity, the death of it as the center of volition, the withdrawal from it of being the prime mover in our constitution. Our thought life is as rich as ever, it's just that we are no longer identified with those thoughts. We have realized that we are not what we think, and the mind is "silenced" since it no longer takes center stage. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith: I just read this Eldon after I had written my own thoughts concerning not really "killing" but paralyzing the lower mind so that it becomes not an active producer, but a passive receptical (upadhi) for Mind as Voice of the Silence. This paralyzing can be achieved by Dharana (contemplation according to HPB) and the eventual shift to a more selfless detachment from selfish desires attached to the senses and a re-attachement to the inner senses or intuion (the Buddic level of the Voice of the Silence). Maybe since everything is reincarnated so to speak, by slaying we don't mean killing out forever, but transforming to a higher vibration the way mattter is converted into energy in an atomic blast. Thus death even for the lower mind is really a transformation and rebirth. Pluto is the archetype for the transformed mind. It can be an atomic blast or a harnessed reactor. Thus killing becomes a metaphor for transformation and redirection of energies from the lower to the higher. Namate Keith Price From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Aug 31 03:29:28 1996 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:29:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: VOS Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi On the statement "The Mind is the Slayer of the Real -- Let the Desciple slay the slayer", here is an excerpt from a message in listening-l, the maillist for Krishnaji's Teachings. I believe that Krishnaji is saying the exactly same thing. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss Instant Enlightenment --------------------- To Krishnamurti the process of enlightenment takes place instantaneously, like a sudden awakening. To most Buddhists enlightenment would take place only after years of painstaking meditative practice and countless rituals.[snip] It is the author's opinion that Krishnamurti's views provide us with more insight into The Sutra of the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge than most explanations available from the Buddhist world. In the Sutra, Avalokitesvara states that there is no birth and no cessation,..., no decrease and no increase,... It is the exact same process which Krishnamurti dwells upon in volume after volume of his works. Enlightenment is a state that is timeless which means that its chief attribute is one of no-time, meaning no involvement with ego or ego-created time. Once an acknowledgement is made by the ego that time is required to attain enlightenment, the search has gone off on a hopeless tangent and will end in failure. The ego has to surrender its jurisdiction in the matter of enlightenment and allow something which is infinite and unknowable to take its course. No Sacred Thoughts ------------------ To Krishnamurti any process of thought is unsacred. Thoughts of the dharma or Buddha are as unsacred as any other type of thought. The only thing remaining sacred in Krishnamurti's view is that which thought is incapable of capturing or the unknowable. All thoughts are mere human creations of the human brain stem and are forever incapable of capturing that which is infinite and unknowable. At first it seems that most Buddhists would agree with the foregoing paragraph. But there is plenty of Buddhist literature available which encourages Buddhists to meditate upon sacred images or thoughts or The Eight-Fold path or some mandala or mantra.[snip] No Path, No Progress, No Goal ----------------------------- "...the bodhissatvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita." To Krishnamurti there is no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules that should be laid down by men for other men to follow on the road to enlightenment. As part of the path, Buddhists must observe a very typical, man-made, structure which begins at the top with The Three Precious Ones: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Each of these pillars has subsets of rules associated with it: The Five Skandas, The Eight Siddhis, etc. Some would have us believe that learning all these articles of faith are necessary for enlightenment.[snip] Here again Krishnamurti seems to be more in agreement with the very core of Buddhist teachings then the Buddhists themselves. The Sutra of the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge sounds more like Krishnamurti than does many of the Buddhist teachers: "There is... no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment..."[snip] No Apostolic following ---------------------- Buddhist teachers are prone to exhort us to believe in the principles that Buddhist leaders have laid down for them over the centuries, and there are authoritative Buddhist lineages with apostles who have been appointed to carry out this task. For Krishnamurti even the faintest aroma of authority is totally detrimental to spirituality, because authority implies that someone has been placed in a position of acceptance. Anyone who accepts anything, any truth from someone else has not yet found it within himself. As long as people are unwilling or for any reason unable to find truth within themselves there will be no possibility of obtaining any true spiritual insight. [snip] According to Krishnamurti the person is not important, but what he says is.[snip] What of all the rules that the Buddha has passed down to us over the centuries? Accounts have it that just before his death the Buddha entrusted his monks to discard all minor rules, saying he knew they were able to discern the essence of dharma. Overcautious, the monks decided they couldn't decide, and kept all the rules. In effect, they denied the Buddha's last wish. Had Krishnamurti sat in the place of the Buddha, and had he made but one rule, it might have been "know thyself", and all other rules would have been declared to be minor and therefore to be discarded. [snip] He(K) always taught at the level of the sutra and for that reason there is much agreement between Krishnamurti and "The Heart Sutra". Krishnamurti,therefore, never compromised himself in the same manner as the Buddha did(i.e. laying down rules, etc.). Krishnamurti remained true, at times obstinately steadfast, to the Sutra level of teaching during his whole life, and his teachings were consequently more difficult for the public to assimilate.[snip] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have an elightening Labour's Day (here in the US). Somendra From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 03:44:03 1996 Date: 30 Aug 96 23:44:03 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Kill out desire! - The end is near! Message-Id: <960831034402_74024.3352_BHT215-7@CompuServe.COM> Does anyone remember those cartoons that used to appear in magazines of the 50's and early 60's (pre-hippie, post beatnik) that showed a man in sackclothe and sandals with beard and dirty hair carrying a sign: "THE END IS NEAR". I seem to remember a lot of them. He represented a complete turning away from the I LUV LUCY consumerism of the time. He was a strange enigmatic figure who was ignored or made fun of, because he was so obviously our of step. He seems to me to represent the psychological type that Jung called the introverted intuitive and represented historically by the Old Testament prophets. If you remember the movie "Excalibur" by John Boorman (a favorite of mine), Lancelot goes from being the knight in shining armor to a flagelant iteneratant preacher with a small flock following him through the the devastation caused by his love affair with Guineverre which poisoned Camelot. He is similar reduced to obscurity that is less that useful and a little funny in a pitiable way. This type is alway out of time, a little ahead, a little behind. It comes to the same thing of not being "with it" in the current collective consciousness, but immersed in the inner world of the collective unconsciousness. A different voice, a different drummer but a necessity to follow despite everything. I wonder if this type is a little predictable in its wide swing from desire to preaching repentance. The apocalypse some of us envisioned as imminent in the 70's has been postponed a long time. As we reach the milenial tuning point, there will of course be a looking back, a rememberance a repentance, a refocus of energies toward the future The job of the repentant one seems not so much as to be self-flagelating in killing out desires, but to be useful again as he was destructive before. Namaste Keith Price From bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Sat Aug 31 05:45:15 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 17:45:15 +1200 From: Bee Brown Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960831054515.0068ff30@whanganui.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Cayce & Psychism At 02:11 PM 28/08/96 -0400, you wrote: >In response to Martin's request for further details concerning >Cayce's approach to psychic powers etc.: I sense a much more >positive attitude generally in A.R.E. circles towards >clairvoyance, telepathy, astrology, auras, kundalini, etc. than in >Theosophical circles. There are frequent workshops and >conferences at the headquarters on such things-- an upcoming one on regression, >for example-- and the whole point of the study group program is >a practical, daily approach to the spiritual life. Although >Cayce is just as insistent as HPB that the psychic cart not be >put before the spiritual/intellectual horse, he still sees >psychism as an integral and valued part of life rather than >simply a pitfall. > >My sense of the cause for this difference involves the >Masters. Theosophy preaches that they (They?) are far above us in >evolution, paragons of virtue and knowledge, and that only such >beings are qualified to explore the paranormal in practical >ways. The rest of us should devote ourselves to study and >service, and some lifetime or other we might attract the >attention of a Master-- and that will signify that we are ready >to learn something practical. The Cayce approach minimizes the >importance of Masters, emphasizes the Christ Consciousness as >an ever-present guide, and encourages people to balance >physical, mental and spiritual aspects of the path. It regards >psychic faculties as ordinary and unremarkable, to be used with >caution but without exaggerated anxiety. > >Hope this is responsive, Martin. > >Cheers >Paul > Sounds like a practical approach to the enormous interest in psychic things that abound today. I have run across the idea that the sutras of Patanjali should be revived and the methods of attaining mastery of ones own psychic energies should now be encouraged because humanity's evolutionary stage has arrived at a point where these various psychic abilities are beginning to manifest themselves. It was suggested that the high incidents of mental instability in the world today could have some links to this blockage that had been placed against teaching people that psychic phenomena can be encouraged and sensibly managed. If the psychic centers are beginning to stir then it seems sensible to educate people about that, rather than let it happen out of the blue and cause fear and possible mental problems. I read a report from a European meeting of psychiatrists etc, that around 65% of the worlds population have mental disturbances in varying degrees.Only a very small % of those are under treatment. The behaviour of people in general seems to indicate that such may be the case. I wonder what will be done about it, if anything!! Cheers, Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port not Responding From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 12:04:01 1996 Date: 31 Aug 96 08:04:01 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Kill out desire! - The End is Near Message-Id: <960831120400_72723.2375_FHP24-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >If you remember the movie "Excalibur" by John Boorman (a favorite of >mine), Lancelot goes from being the knight in shining armor to a flagelant >iteneratant preacher with a small flock following him through the the >devastation caused by his love affair with Guineverre which poisoned Camelot. >He is similar reduced to obscurity that is less that useful and a little funny >in a pitiable way. Sounds like a Pisces. Let's party, then repent. >The job of the repentant one seems not so much as to be self-flagelating in >killing out desires, but to be useful again as he was destructive before. More useful, as the repentant learns the right use of his/her energy, rather than the suppression or wrong use of it. As for ends, the end is always near. I just read an obit in the morning paper for a 23-year-old woman whose small plane went down in Botswana. We never know when the end of our storyline is going to happen (unless you're psychic). The only sane approach is to realize that as personalities we are finite creatures drawn and fleshed out by our Souls, who working through us gains knowledge (gnosis) and wisdom in a particular lifetime, then withdraws to contemplate the lessons and plan for the next venture into matter. The end is always near, but so is the beginning. - Ann E. Bermingham From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 12:11:36 1996 Date: 31 Aug 96 08:11:36 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HPB Theosophy Message-Id: <960831121135_72723.2375_FHP30-1@CompuServe.COM> Michael: Liesel: >'Scuse me, but with a statement like that, I'm wondering what kind of >theosophy you've been studying, if any. Maybe it depends "whose" theosophy one is looking at. Seems to me that CWL put a greater emphasis on the Masters than others. Today, the old wise guys seem to in the background, which is wisdom in itself. At one lodge I attended in Chicago, they had large pictures of two of the Masters on the wall, but they were only there for inspiration not adoration. The main work of the lodge was the study of many things pertaining to Theosophy. -Ann E. Bermingham From ramadoss@eden.com Sat Aug 31 13:02:26 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 08:02:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: HPB Theosophy In-Reply-To: <960831121135_72723.2375_FHP30-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > in the background, which is wisdom in itself. At one lodge I attended in > Chicago, they had large pictures of two of the Masters on the wall, but they > were only there for inspiration not adoration. The main work of the lodge was Are the pictures (especially the colored ones) available for purchase anywhere? Does anyone know? ...Ramadoss From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 31 15:27:37 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 11:27:37 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960831112736_191664084@emout07.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: ARE membership Paul, I had a feeling that that was the case. It is to be hoped that as generations change in the TS things may improve for us, before it's too late. Chuck the Heretic From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Sat Aug 31 15:10:47 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:07:47 -0300 From: Subject: Peter in Rome(part 1) Priority: normal Message-Id: <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br> We are discussing the truth about historic Jesus, as written in Toldoth, that refers to him as living around 1BC. HPB refers to Peter and Jesus living at the same time. So if Peter really lived under the first century, then we have here a contradiction in HPB`s argument about the historicity of Jesus. In this e-mail I bring some references that states that 1) Peter lived under first century and 2) Peter founded the church in Rome. Both these assertions are contested by HPB. HPB try to prove that Peter never founded the church in Rome. Dr. Alan Bain also wrote:. At startings pages of BOOK III chapter III, HPB follows Dr. Lardner and recognices that the first epistle of Peter was written about 64AD, and states that at this time Peter was in Babilony. There is a misconception here. Maybe HPB is referring to 1Peter5:13 where Peter states that composed his epistle in Babilony. But Rome, was also referred as Babylon by ancient christians, for instance at Revelatinos 18:2 and 14:8. So Babilony here means Rome. Enc. Brittanica writes: (vol9 p332 ) So HPB probably commits an error concluding that Peter was really in Babylon, and not in Rome. HPB cites a work called and states that no church was founded before the reign of Antonino Pius (138-161AD). Again a misconception from HPB: she herself recognices that Linus was the bishop of Rome during 69-81AD. Suposing that Linus received the bishopric of Rome in 69AD, HPB concludes that he could not receive this bishopric from Peter, because Eusebius and Irineaus mentions that this moment occurred around 64-68AD during the Nero`s persecution under the fire of Rome at 67AD. But here there is no contradiction. It`s perfectly possible that this difference of only two years, can be explained by some error in dates given by Eusebius or Iraenaeus. The important point, I repeat, is that historians recognices that Peter founded the church in Rome. Daniel Rops in his book p94 mentions that even protestants like Lietzmann (Petrus und Paulus in Rom, Berlim,1927) and the liberal Harnack recognices that Peter founded the church in Rome. Enc. Brittannica continues: Observe that Ignatius wrote to Romans and says indirectly referring that these two apostles preached in Rome, and then were very respectable among romans. This is opinion of Duchesne (histoire ancienne de leglise,1) http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers ECF01.TXT THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS,CHAP. IV. ..Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain. Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome, and in his letter talk about some martyrs (including Peter and Paul) that suffered his martyrdom in Rome http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers ECF01.TXT THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS,CHAP. V. But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church]have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Dionisius, bishop of Corinth (165AD) is described by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II,XXV,8 mentions also that peter and Paul Origen, egyptian theologian (185-254AD) is described by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III,I Some more later comments of Iraenaeus (180AD) and Eusebius (263-340AD) also must be taken in question, because they reflect ancient traditions, and were not contested by any christian writer of their time. Abrantes From ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br Sat Aug 31 15:12:08 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:09:08 -0300 From: Subject: Peter in Rome(part 2) Priority: normal Message-Id: <4F985F7127@serv.peb.ufrj.br> from http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/12260a.htm (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city e. g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops. We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077). These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and 3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In 3:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos. Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt. Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, 3:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome -- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus. Eusebius, Ecclesiastic history http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers/ ECF24.TXT BOOK III, CHAPTER II. The First Ruler of the Church of Rome. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle. CHAPTER XIII. Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome. After Vespasian (69-79AD)had reigned ten years Titus (79-81AD), his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign (81AD), Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years(69-81AD), delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian (81-96AD)after he had reigned two years and the same number of months. Iraenaeus Against Heresies BOOK III (ECF01.TXT) CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every where, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy (2Tm4:21). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. Abrantes From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 17:13:57 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 13:13:57 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608311821.OAA23183@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Voice > Perhaps the mad houses are full of people overwhelmed by past life >memories and psychological rememnants pushing there way into the present. >Maybe it is best to look forward to humanity as a whole rather than dwelling >self-centeredly on a so-called "past life". I'm sure people have been overwhelmed by past memories. But sometimes it's necessary to look back to explain the past to yourself before you can go forward. It's one of those instances where one needs to find the Buddha's Middle Way, ie when to just go forweard, when to look back. I think sometimes one can look backward on one's own, and sometimes one needs to do it with the help of a therapist. I think the individual person is the best judge of when to use what route. Liesel From ozren.skondric@kiss.uni-lj.si Tue Aug 31 18:28:06 1993 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 20:28:06 +0200 From: Ozren Skondric Message-Id: <2C8396C1.303F@kiss.uni-lj.si> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: love affair Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Im currently reading a book titled GURDJIEFF-A Very Great Enigma by J.G.Bennett. Bennett writes that Gurdjieff once sad that when hi, as a 18 years old boy, was in India he met Madame Blavatsky and that she fell in love with him. He adds immediately that story is probably totally apocryphal, for G. was known to make up stories. But just think of it. All I have to say is, and I quote here ;...hhh...hhh...cool! ; Ozren From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 17:40:31 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 13:40:31 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608311848.OAA23845@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: the voice > Evil can be seen as the very >essence of self-centered desire at the expense of the larger GOOD. I've got something to say about "self-centered desire", namely that at times it is a very healthy thing. I'm looking at this from the point of view of a mother. I'll agree that if there's not enough food in the house, it should go to the kids before it goes to the mother. In that case, I think the mother shouldn't have self centered desire. The kids are growing, & have their life ahead of them, and being hungry feels uncomfortable & sometimes hurts. But barring such drastic circumstances, if there's a more or less normal family life, I think the mother should have some self-centered desires, such as wanting to read a good book undisturbed, going off to a beauty spa for a few hours, taking a vacation away from the kids, and sometimes away from the husband too. That kind of self-centered desire adds to the well being of the entire family, I think, and I consider it more wholesome for everynone concerned than the contributiions to the family of a mother who spends her whole life putting her own wishes always in the background, and doing continually what other members of her family want her to do, without ever thinking of what she wants to do. To me that's overdoing the principle of trying to discard self-centered desire, and I consider such a woman a vampire of herself. Liesel From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 01:59:24 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:59:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Theosophy In-Reply-To: <199608310103.VAA10504@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <199608310103.VAA10504@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >Theosophy is not a cult with the Masters & HPB at the head, >it's a way of life lived by present day Theosophists. And, ideally, it's >lived by the individual as he/she sees fit, & understands it, not as either >the masters or HPB said it should be lived. They themselves told us to use >our own common sense & to not heroworship them. Dear Liesel, Please post this every month or so just to remind us .... Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 20:55:42 1996 Date: 31 Aug 96 16:55:42 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Reply to Ann: End is Near Message-Id: <960831205541_74024.3352_BHT177-1@CompuServe.COM> As for ends, the end is always near. I just read an obit in the morning paper for a 23-year-old woman whose small plane went down in Botswana. We never know when the end of our storyline is going to happen (unless you're psychic). The only sane approach is to realize that as personalities we are finite creatures drawn and fleshed out by our Souls, who working through us gains knowledge (gnosis) and wisdom in a particular lifetime, then withdraws to contemplate the lessons and plan for the next venture into matter. The end is always near, but so is the beginning. - Ann E. Bermingham I agree that this is one of the great special attractions and blessing of the theosophical perspective: to give the world and the individual as many chances as it, he or she needs to "get it right" - no hell or heaven for knowing the right name when you knock at the "pearly gate"--- Psst! Jesus sent me and all that :) I have more or less stated that I have been a bit of a wastrel. I always expected to live fast die young. But all those rich and famous rock stars and (poor addicts as well) have gone on and I am still here. I guess I have lived long enough, 44 now, to believe that suffering and old age are not the worst things that can happen to people. Not knowing love and doing what you are supposed to even if that is "dying young". I have tried not to understand the folk expression: "only the good die young," but am coming to understand it more everyday. I have worked with the elderly quite closely. I have seen them lying in their own urine and feces, in incredible pain and still insist that they wanted to live that they had the TV and life was "wonderful". The relatives and hospital staff wondered with me at the meaning of these "burdens" to others. What lessons could they be teaching? Do I want to know? I wonder if some are given the special role of "dying young" - for seemingly no reason and living a long time -seemingly with out meaning. These are the elements of fate and karma that are the hardest to look at for me. Does my suffering force me to CREATE meaning where none exists? If all is maya, and suffering is maya, can I fool the fooler, can I create an illusion of love, hope and joy? Is this the real meaning of slay the slayer? The divine fool by being connected to the higher becomes the magician that can transmute even though he is walking off the cliff with the damn hound yapping at this butt :) Namaste Keith Price From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 20:56:11 1996 Date: 31 Aug 96 16:56:11 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: A Course in Creative Suffering - What a Miracle! Message-Id: <960831205611_74024.3352_BHT177-2@CompuServe.COM> Someone said the job of a spiritual devotee like a minister or even a counsellor is to kill oneself very slowly and very intelligently for his fellow man. The crucifiction of the spirit on the cross of matter will take place slowly over many lifetimes or symbolically as an event in the life of the historic Jesus and in our individual mind as the gnostic crucifiction of our individual personality to a higher Self and resurrection as one with that Self. The Buddha said all is suffering, it is in the nature of the concantenation of being and desire (no-being as a perpetual eternal LACK or ACTIVE NOTHINGNESS seeking FULLFILLMENT. The preacher in Eclessiates said all is vanity (nothing) and vexation of the spirit. But we are called to suffer or to feel our existential state authentically and honestly, we have choices: 1) the fool - denial of the reality of suffering and the active principle of "evil" or "entropy" or "emptiness" 2)the devil - escape into the senses as temporary relief (hedonism) 3)the hanged man - suffering senseslessly and stupidly by trial and error as a negative role model of the fool and what might happen to one (there but for the Grace of God, go I, so I had better get my act together ) 4)the magician of creative suffering - having children to feed clothe, educate and nurture or creating works of art and commerce, or nuturing humanity itself on some level (the Masters - the Boddhisattva vow maybe one more true acceptance of suffering as self-imposed Necessity. 5) the divine Fool who has transcended suffering while remaining in it. 6) the hermit - contemplation of suffering and one could go on of course An interesting idea is presented by Liz Geene in "The Astrology of Fate": She writes: " I am still in no position to know whether Chrysaippos the Neoplatonist was right when he described dual fate as energy and substance. Madame Blavatsky, after all, equated karma with substance, while the destiny inherent in mythic themes is the 'energy' aspect. Perhaps the two are not really separate, but simply 'feel' different because they are experieneced at different levels." I don't know where this idea is stated by HPB. I think I remember she called many things a substance-principle. The whole discussion around mulaprakriti is obstruse to me. We tend to think of substance as something to be molded and transformed by the active energy of the will, thus we create our on fate by involuting into substance which then is the very process of evolution. The English conotation of fate as the opposite of free will is the problem for the West. In the East, karma and fate are more closely twins. C.G. Jung said: "Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do." "Sin" is fighting against fate (will of the Higher Larger Self), but this creative tension is what we may experinence at once as free will, power, and intentionality, the original "I as not that which is desired" with inevitable frustration of which creates suffering and the release of the tension which creates temproary "pleasure" in some form. The tension must be constantly recreated and released like Sisyphus rolling his rock forever up the hill just to see it roll down again every time. The rock and the hill and the rolling down are there for all of us. Maybe spirituality could be whistling while you work, helping a friend roll his rock up the hill for a change, changing hills occasionally :) The fated part is inescapable, but the creativity response and attitude is infinitie. The divine play of Lila is a cosmic joke of the playing of the gods, the tragic suffering of the sentient being in the drama or perhaps a tragi-comedy a little at a time. The miracle of laugher to heal illness and alleviate suffering is well known, it is a miracle and gift of Jove. Embracing one's fate as suffering seems to go against all within us. It is a work against nature, an opus contra naturum, according to Jung. Spirit is a type of miracle and to feel its energy and listen to the Voice of the Silence is a gift, a miracle of seeing things different as in the eyes of the child (HPB mentions becoming like a child, in echo of becoming like children to enter the Kingdom Christ and in advance of finding the inner child of today). The whole process of life seem to be a course in lessons of desire and suffering, but the fact that we can create, and intelligently direct as we embrace suffering with compassion and even the release of joviality at the whole mess seems trully a miracle. Namate Keith Price From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 20:05:55 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:05:55 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199608312113.RAA28316@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: psychism > this blockage that >had been placed against teaching people that psychic phenomena can be >encouraged and sensibly managed. Bee, you started me athinking. I think this blockage is caused by fear of the unknown, also by the experiences psychic children and adults have often had. The parents either think the kids are imagining things, or they tell them not to do it, or some such foolishness, which confuses & discourages the kids. I know a few psychic adults, and, until very recently they've most often had to hide their gifts, because they were misunderstood, treated as liars and quacks, sometimes were even threatened by the Law ... but it all boils down with that hardly anyone really knows how to handle psychism, and is afraid of it. With this new interest in the subject coming in, I'm often amused at the TV ads of psychics, where their clients praise the marvelous talents of the psychic who has been able to tell them all about their past history. The clients don't know that one of the easiest things for a psychic person to do is read another's thoughts, and from that get all the information about them very easily. So if, as Bee rightly says, people are interested in ESP at this era, what has just occurred to me is that we Theosophists could be of service. When you push all the negative things we do about psychism aside, we do have a few capable psychics in our midst, and we have lots of literature describing psychic experiences. We also have any number of people, such as myself, who have come in longterm contact with some psychics and know at least something about how it works. So why not use what we know, and teach the others? I think that would be helpful. Liesel From 72723.2375@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 21:57:17 1996 Date: 31 Aug 96 17:57:17 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Reply to Keith - The End is Near Message-Id: <960831215716_72723.2375_FHP48-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith: >I agree that this is one of the great special attractions and blessing of the >theosophical perspective: to give the world and the individual as many chances >at it . . . From what I understand, the chances aren't quite endless. There's a set time in which if you don't get caught up with the group, you get set back for more remedial work. >I have more or less stated that I have been a bit of a wastrel. How titillating! >I have tried not to understand the folk expression: "only the good die young," but am coming to >understand it more everyday. I thought that was just a line from a Billy Joel song. Some anti-Catholic thing where he suggested that Catholic high school girls fling off their uniforms and better yet, throw off their inhibitions. >I have worked with the elderly quite closely. I have seen them lying in their >own urine and feces, in incredible pain and still insist that they wanted to >live that they had the TV and life was "wonderful". Consider that many mentally depressed people, of all ages, whether due to physical or emotional problems are eager to kill themselves. That suggests that the viewpoint of whether life is wonderful or terrible lies in one's consciousness. >The relatives and hospital staff wondered with me at the meaning of these "burdens" to >others. What lessons could they be teaching? Do I want to know? I wonder if some are >given the special role of "dying young" - for seemingly no reason and living a >long time -seemingly with out meaning. The purpose of the Soul can be far different from that of the personality in terms of meaning. I heard a very wise woman say that some people only live for 3 minutes and accomplish what they came here to do. We are spirits acting through masks. >These are the elements of fate and karma >that are the hardest to look at for me. Does my suffering force me to CREATE >meaning where none exists? If all is maya, and suffering is maya, can I fool the >fooler, can I create an illusion of love, hope and joy? Is this the real >meaning of slay the slayer? If you can establish contact with the Soul/Ego, you can use intuitive powers to see behind the veil of illusion, material and astral, and into the meanings and purpose behind things. Of course, these are only words. It makes more sense to experience it. Love, hope and joy is no illusion. It springs forth from your spiritual core like an unending fountain. That is why yogis, Theosophists and holy men everywhere pursue it with more fervor than if they were looking for a gold mine. > The divine fool by being connected to the higher >becomes the magician that can transmute even though he is walking off the cliff >with the damn hound yapping at this butt :) Well put! Namaste to you, Ann E. Bermingham From Drpsionic@aol.com Sat Aug 31 23:14:59 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 19:14:59 -0400 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-Id: <960831191458_274124475@emout19.mail.aol.com> Subject: Re: Kill out desire! - The End is Near One little question. Why should anyone repent of something they enjoy so much? Chuck the Heretic From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 21:37:50 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:37:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Peter in Rome(part 2) In-Reply-To: <4F985F7127@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <4F985F7127@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well >attested as to be historically certain. All of the writers who you quote are Christian bishops of a *much* later period. We have their claims, but no actual evidence separate from those claims. In any case, it is (IMO) doubtful whether the office of "bishop" even existed at such an early period. Apostles, yes; Bishops, no. One account gives Linus (a Briton) as first "bishop" of Rome, and not Clement, but this too is a later Christian source (See Ante-Nicene Fathers somewhere for this). As I support the modern view that 1 Timothy is not by Paul, then there is no evidence before the writings of such as Clement and Ignatius of any Bishoprics in the early churches, and we are into the second century by then. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 21:44:08 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:44:08 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Peter in Rome(part 1) In-Reply-To: <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >Suposing that Linus received the bishopric of Rome in 69AD, HPB >concludes that he could not receive this bishopric from Peter, because >Eusebius and Irineaus mentions that this moment occurred around 64-68AD >during the Nero`s persecution under the fire of Rome at 67AD. >But here there is no contradiction. It`s perfectly possible that this >difference of only two years, can be explained by some error in dates given >by Eusebius or Iraenaeus. It is also perfectly possible that there is no such error, and a contradiction does exist. If there is any truth to the "episcopate" of Linus, he would most likely have taken over as Apostle/Shaliach from Paul, *who stayed with Linus in Rome for some years* according to the accounts attributed to Paul himself. The dates would then fit quite reasonably, as we do not know for certain either when Paul died, or where Paul died. There remains a tradition that he fulfilled his desire to go on to Spain, but no evidence for it. The claims for Paul's and Peter's martyrdom in Rome are late. Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 21:31:27 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:31:27 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Peter in Rome(part 1) In-Reply-To: <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >But Rome, was also referred as Babylon by ancient >christians, for instance at Revelatinos 18:2 and 14:8. So Babilony here >means Rome. Enc. Brittanica writes: (vol9 p332 ) reference in Acts or Romans to residence of Peter in Rome gives pause BUT >is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of babylon in >5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the >capital city. .. and Babylon was the capital city of the Persian Empire! However, whether there is any substance to the much beloved and totally unproven hypothesis that 1 Peter uses "Babylon" as a substitute for Rome is possibly of no importance whatever. Indeed there is a greeting from Babylon at the end of the Greek received text of 1 Peter, but it very possibly was an *added greeting* by a later scribe who forwarded the epistle (probably from the real Babylon). In the very ancient Aramaic "Peshitta" text of 1 Peter (The Aramean churches have never recogised 2 Peter) the verses mentioning Babylon are not present, and the letter thus appears as a General Epistle which could have been written from anywhere. The same churches do not receive the Book of Revelation, which is the only other place where any meaningful substitution of "Babylon" for "Rome" appears. In other words, whenever Jesus and the apostles lived, one of the earliest and, in its day, largest churches in Christendom, was concerned with neither place in any distinctive sense. Jerusalem was their "HQ" until after 135 a.d. (c.e.). Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 21:47:47 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:47:47 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Peter in Rome(part 1) In-Reply-To: <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <4F92BE5EE3@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >Some more later comments of Iraenaeus (180AD) and Eusebius (263-340AD) also >must be taken in question, because they reflect ancient traditions, and ^^^^^^^^^^ > >were not contested by any christian writer of their time. Hardly surprising if the Christians of the time wanted to believe what is, *and remains* ONLY A TRADITION. People in general *outside* of the churches probably never even heard of either of the apostles Peter and Paul! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 21:50:31 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:50:31 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Message-Id: Subject: Re: Peter in Rome(part 2) In-Reply-To: <4F985F7127@serv.peb.ufrj.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <4F985F7127@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br writes >3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, >committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this >Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy (2Tm4:21). To him succeeded >Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement >was allotted the bishopric. With respect, all of your arguments are not very different from those of Theosophists who quote Blavatsky to "prove" that what Blavatsky said was correct! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 23:24:52 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 19:24:52 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199609010032.UAA04401@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: the voice >The whole process of life seem to be a course in lessons of desire and >suffering, but the fact that we can create, and intelligently direct as we >embrace suffering with compassion and even the release of joviality at the whole >mess seems trully a miracle. > Dear Ken, Keep your eye on the miracle. It grows. Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 23:28:56 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 19:28:56 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199609010036.UAA04581@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: To: Keith Re: the voice >>The whole process of life seem to be a course in lessons of desire and >>suffering, but the fact that we can create, and intelligently direct as we >>embrace suffering with compassion and even the release of joviality at the whole >>mess seems trully a miracle. >> >Dear Ken, I meant to say >>The whole process of life seem to be a course in lessons of desire and >>suffering, but the fact that we can create, and intelligently direct as we >>embrace suffering with compassion and even the release of joviality at the whole >>mess seems trully a miracle. >> >Dear Ken, > >Keep your eye on the miracle. It grows. > >Liesel >>The whole process of life seem to be a course in lessons of desire and >>suffering, but the fact that we can create, and intelligently direct as we >>embrace suffering with compassion and even the release of joviality at the whole >>mess seems trully a miracle. >> >Dear Ken, I meant to say "Dear Keit", sorry 'bout that.lfd > >Keep your eye on the miracle. It grows. > >Liesel From liesel@dreamscape.com Sat Aug 31 23:35:45 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 19:35:45 -0400 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Message-Id: <199609010043.UAA04803@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: the voice >>Keith: >> >>I don't know if this is what your are getting at, but you have made me think >>about killing out ATTACHMENT to my desires > >Liesel: > >How about *letting go* of an attachment - maybe then it will "die" by >itself without this violent "kill" idea .... > >Alan >--------- Good idea! LFD From wichm@xs4all.nl Sat Aug 31 10:04:19 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 12:04:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: wichm@xs4all.nl Message-Id: <199608311004.MAA04217@magigimmix.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 207 >> "The Mind is the Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB > >>First of all one would question whether HPB sees this correctly. Unless it >>implies that the human mind, limited by its evolutionary brain-development, >>is not the instrument to assess reality. > >Or perhaps we might consider if we understand the statement correctly? There >are many ways of considering this statement. Often a statement may have a >subtle meaning that is hard to make sense of, without considering Eastern >thought. I can only agree with the first part: "The Mind is the Slayer of the Real". The second part appears to me a play of words, an aphorism. I wonder whether one has to steep to considering Eastern thought. >. That is, we shift the seat of awareness >or volition from desires and mind, kama and lower manas, to something deeper >within. . We slay by >*withdrawing our attention*, by starving them of volitional energy, by having >our seat of awareness, our first point of action, as arising from deeper within. > I agree entirely. >The mind is slain when it understands *for us*, but stops pretending to be us, >and stops as well fooling us with the notion that we are separate, independent >individuals, poisoning us with its selfishness and "what's in it for me" >motivations. The slaying comes from the death of it as an entity, the death >of it as the center of volition, the withdrawal from it of being the prime >mover in our constitution. Our thought life is as rich as ever, it's just that >we are no longer identified with those thoughts. We have realized that we >are not what we think, and the mind is "silenced" since it no longer takes >center stage. > I agree again but cannot live with the word "slay". It is the wrong word for a fine truth. Michael From mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz Sat Aug 31 11:12:36 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 23:12:36 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960901052452.1ebf88ae@iprolink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: Slay the Slayer - or make friends? (etc) [I sent this a day or so ago to theos-l under a different subject heading, and would like to beg the indulgence of theos-news subscribers who have already seen it there.] Keith wrote a few days ago >The first page has the interesting injuction: "The Mind is the Slayer of >the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." - HPB > >All that capitalization implies personification or divinity or both. Or maybe principles that generalise what each individual goes through. Milestones in the core curriculum, so to speak. >"Kill thy desires ... strangle thy sins ... kill in thyself all memory of >past experiences." - HPB > >Isn't this a little violent? This self-abuse and flagellation of the >products of consciousness can be seen in poetic or allegorcial, yet it >still seems a little morbid to the modern mind. I'd agree completely. Taken literally, the result could quite possibly be worse than the desires you're trying to kill. Are we really being called to engage in violence? In not-love? I think not. It's got to be all in the understanding of what those words are pointing to, given that they are already in a language that is foreign to the environment these aphorisms grew out of, and is not well equipped for the job at that. >The modern view is to sit down with your desires and sins and have a nice >chat. They are only archetypes and like members of a dysfuctional family >can "recover" and enter into more harmonious relationships. Is this >ascetism necessary? I hate to harp on the theme of misguided purity, but >hating your sins? Hate seems to breed hate and focusing on sins would only >make them have more power, in today's lingo. Transform the base into gold >maybe as in the alchemical mode. Couldn't these senses and sins be >harnassed for some higher purpose/ > >I think she probably has somthing more subtle in mind of course, but she >does insist on KILL, KILL, KILL past hope of resurrection all our little >human frailites etc. What an order! I can't go through with it! I am >glad I have seven lives to go. (Cheshire grin:) Good on you, Keith. A bit of a smile can dissipate an otherwise grim prospect! And lead us nearer the truth as well, I'd bet. This all reminds me of something Geoffrey Hodson used to say, that whenever you come across violence or obscenity in ancient scriptures, it's often a hint to go beneath the surface and look at a deeper level. A breaking point for the shell of intellect, not unlike a Zen koan. We could start digging with desire. Think of the quality as well as the end-goal of the following which can all come within the scope of the word "desire" in ordinary useage:= 1 To get money from somebody else to buy more drugs, to the extent that you don't care if you club them senseless in the process. 2 To have more drugs so as to experience relief from life or withdrawal symptoms, or to change your mind state. 3 To want to be in love, more than loving the specific person. 4 To protect the people in your family. 5 To be creative and experience creativity. 6 To wield power over others. 7 To do a job well. 8 To be loved and liked by others. 9 To help in building something for your community. 10 To feel the power of sexual experience coursing through you. 11 To experience union with the divine. 12 To rescue all living beings from the illusion and pain of life. So when we think of killing out desires, do we mean ALL of these? If so, we'd knock the motivation for the Bodhisattva vow out of the running, for one. There's clearly a vast spectrum of kinds of desire. Some are negative, dark small and destructive, and others are positive, light-filled, wide-ranging and nurturing in their effect. Another factor is, who or what is doing the desiring? Psychogenesis has a very powerful explanatory or at least descriptive value, here. Your fragment of the universal consciousness is temporarily trapped in states such as "I really want a cigarette", while they last. On the other hand, the focal point of "your" consciousness can shift and widen immeasurably when you are resting in a beautiful natural environment and begin to feel at peace, and one with, all that is around you. Likewise with meditation. This trapping is typical of addiction in all its forms, even to little things which are normally never called addiction, and are what I believe the word "attachment" is referring to, in yogic and other texts. Now, what about "killing"? Surely there are skilful means for ending our thralldom, and they must be underpinned by love taken in a wide sense, ie a deep understanding of the life-manifestations that make up a human being, coupled with a life-nurturing attitude and feeling. This is not the same thing as pandering to all the impulses that might arise, but is a healing, unifying, harmonising thing. If it seems to come from outside yourself, like grace, as it often does in the beginning, that's OK; it's just a matter of where the centre of your awareness or point of identification is for the time being. These means might need to include some very practical things such as taking part in an anger-management support group, or therapy to modify abusive behaviour patterns, because it seems that addictions and ingrained destructive patterns involve the most material aspects of our makeup. An example is the way that drugs alter brain cell receptor sites so that we physically crave the drug. Consciousness, or the I focus, can be imagined as being embedded in the complex of feelings, behaviours and attitudes that are this multi-level trap or funnel that we can't get out of for the time being. In theosophical terms, addiction structures manifest at physical, etheric, astral and mental levels. I'm generalising here, and it would be interesting to go into this in more depth. There are other ways we can mobilise energy within ourselves, or invoke it from "above", in our search for emancipation. And, having made a case for love above, I have to say there ARE times when a strong "no" or current of applied energy, are just the right thing to dissipate a recalcitrant formation, in yourself or in your children. This isn't necessarily killing anything, or even doing violence, but rather rearrangement and transmutation, matching the amount of energy to the resistance. Have pity on the poor stuff you are made of! It could be quite a release for the elemental substance in your vehicles from pathological structures and states that you have subscribed to for years, if not lives, as well as for you yourself! So I'm not saying to love yourself in the usual meaning of that phrase, but rather something more all-encompassing and life-affirming. I was putting my mind back, fancifully, to the time when something like "Kill out desire." was first said to a pupil, and it struck me it probably had a lot of surprise value in the context that killing was something that people did readily to others, but never dreamed of doing to something inside themselves. The liberating power of surprise, again like a koan. A thought on strangling your sins. First, as many of us will know, the word "sin" meant originally a falling short of the mark, but a clear and likely meaning for this (to me) is based on the observation that where attention goes, energy flows. If attention, ie the focal point of our consciousness, is withdrawn from a complex, a major source of energy for sustaining it will be cut off - strangled, so to speak. Not done with violent intent. It's rather like Patanjali's admonition to "think on the opposite". Re the memory bit, in Keith's quotation above, one of the characteristics of "spiritual" awareness is the transcendence of memory, for instance seeing everything as if it were new, even if you've seen it every day of your life. So what dies here, would be the ability of memory to trap your consciousness. Hmmm. Interesting stuff. Well, that's about enough for now. I can't help feeling that it's easy to forget that our mystical traditions are based very firmly in ordinary reality (whatever meanings you like, for that), and relate to real things in the field of consciousness of ordinary people. A bit of mystique and obscurity almost inevitably spring up when the time, or the level of insight are far from where we perceive ourselves to be. After all, one of the main things about theosophy, as a human endeavour and capacity, is gnosis - the coming, unfolding ability to KNOW for ourselves. Our beloved ancient texts are maps of the way to that place. Murray Member TI and the TS in NZ From 74024.3352@CompuServe.COM Sat Aug 31 20:56:11 1996 Date: 31 Aug 96 16:56:11 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: A Course in Creative Suffering - What a Miracle! Message-Id: <960831205611_74024.3352_BHT177-2@CompuServe.COM> Someone said the job of a spiritual devotee like a minister or even a counsellor is to kill oneself very slowly and very intelligently for his fellow man. The crucifiction of the spirit on the cross of matter will take place slowly over many lifetimes or symbolically as an event in the life of the historic Jesus and in our individual mind as the gnostic crucifiction of our individual personality to a higher Self and resurrection as one with that Self. The Buddha said all is suffering, it is in the nature of the concantenation of being and desire (no-being as a perpetual eternal LACK or ACTIVE NOTHINGNESS seeking FULLFILLMENT. The preacher in Eclessiates said all is vanity (nothing) and vexation of the spirit. But we are called to suffer or to feel our existential state authentically and honestly, we have choices: 1) the fool - denial of the reality of suffering and the active principle of "evil" or "entropy" or "emptiness" 2)the devil - escape into the senses as temporary relief (hedonism) 3)the hanged man - suffering senseslessly and stupidly by trial and error as a negative role model of the fool and what might happen to one (there but for the Grace of God, go I, so I had better get my act together ) 4)the magician of creative suffering - having children to feed clothe, educate and nurture or creating works of art and commerce, or nuturing humanity itself on some level (the Masters - the Boddhisattva vow maybe one more true acceptance of suffering as self-imposed Necessity. 5) the divine Fool who has transcended suffering while remaining in it. 6) the hermit - contemplation of suffering and one could go on of course An interesting idea is presented by Liz Geene in "The Astrology of Fate": She writes: " I am still in no position to know whether Chrysaippos the Neoplatonist was right when he described dual fate as energy and substance. Madame Blavatsky, after all, equated karma with substance, while the destiny inherent in mythic themes is the 'energy' aspect. Perhaps the two are not really separate, but simply 'feel' different because they are experieneced at different levels." I don't know where this idea is stated by HPB. I think I remember she called many things a substance-principle. The whole discussion around mulaprakriti is obstruse to me. We tend to think of substance as something to be molded and transformed by the active energy of the will, thus we create our on fate by involuting into substance which then is the very process of evolution. The English conotation of fate as the opposite of free will is the problem for the West. In the East, karma and fate are more closely twins. C.G. Jung said: "Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do." "Sin" is fighting against fate (will of the Higher Larger Self), but this creative tension is what we may experinence at once as free will, power, and intentionality, the original "I as not that which is desired" with inevitable frustration of which creates suffering and the release of the tension which creates temproary "pleasure" in some form. The tension must be constantly recreated and released like Sisyphus rolling his rock forever up the hill just to see it roll down again every time. The rock and the hill and the rolling down are there for all of us. Maybe spirituality could be whistling while you work, helping a friend roll his rock up the hill for a change, changing hills occasionally :) The fated part is inescapable, but the creativity response and attitude is infinitie. The divine play of Lila is a cosmic joke of the playing of the gods, the tragic suffering of the sentient being in the drama or perhaps a tragi-comedy a little at a time. The miracle of laugher to heal illness and alleviate suffering is well known, it is a miracle and gift of Jove. Embracing one's fate as suffering seems to go against all within us. It is a work against nature, an opus contra naturum, according to Jung. Spirit is a type of miracle and to feel its energy and listen to the Voice of the Silence is a gift, a miracle of seeing things different as in the eyes of the child (HPB mentions becoming like a child, in echo of becoming like children to enter the Kingdom Christ and in advance of finding the inner child of today). The whole process of life seem to be a course in lessons of desire and suffering, but the fact that we can create, and intelligently direct as we embrace suffering with compassion and even the release of joviality at the whole mess seems trully a miracle. Namate Keith Price From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 20:46:00 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:46:00 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Leave past lives in the past! In-Reply-To: <960831023954_74024.3352_BHT215-2@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960831023954_74024.3352_BHT215-2@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes > Maybe >it is best to look forward to humanity as a whole rather than dwelling >self-centeredly on a so-called "past life". I am sure of it! Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 20:55:12 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:55:12 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Re: Reply to Alan In-Reply-To: <960831030707_74024.3352_BHT215-4@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960831030707_74024.3352_BHT215-4@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >I am remembering that Maya means not illusion, but "to measure, to cut, to >discriminate, to dualize as me and not-me. To measure the measurer, to have the >mirror look at itself. Zen seeks to achieve just such breakthroughs. And the >subatomic model seems to present the same form of the looker affecting the >looked at because they are not two things, but the snake looking at its tail. > >Namaste > >Keith Price >Keith Price Dear Keiths, .. and you can "strangle" none of the above, surely? Alan --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 20:51:31 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:51:31 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: The end is near! In-Reply-To: <960831034402_74024.3352_BHT215-7@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960831034402_74024.3352_BHT215-7@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >Does anyone remember those cartoons that used to appear in magazines of the 50's >and early 60's (pre-hippie, post beatnik) that showed a man in sackclothe and >sandals with beard and dirty hair carrying a sign: "THE END IS NEAR". My favorite was the one where you saw just the placard and a note saying "Gone to lunch." Alan :-) --------- Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW) From TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 31 20:49:01 1996 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:49:01 +0100 From: Alan Message-Id: Subject: Attachment In-Reply-To: <960831024731_74024.3352_BHT215-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 In message <960831024731_74024.3352_BHT215-3@CompuServe.COM>, Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes >Keith: > >I don't know if this is what your are getting at, but you have made me think >about killing out ATTACHMENT to my desires Liesel: How about *letting go* of an attachment - maybe then it will "die" by itself without this violent "kill" idea .... Alan