From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:17:26 +0000 From: Alan Subject: WELCOME Message-ID: <+kIZ6DAWGUeyEwFc@nellie2.demon.co.uk> Theosophy International welcomes Bill Gannon Makheru Membership tally now 48. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:31:31 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Latest membership list Message-ID: 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. The full "Statement of Intent" may be found via URL http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ or by sending an e-mail message asking for details to TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk "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) (SRIA) Alan BAIN, D.D. (UK): Member, TSE (Unattached). Former member, American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature (retired). E-mail: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk Gregg BARTLE: TSA E-mail: currently offline Virginia BEHRENS: TSA E-mail: SeussInUse@gnn.com Ann Elizabeth BERMINGHAM: TSA, Member-at-large. E-mail: 72723.2375@compuserve.com Mrs. Geraldine BESKIN (UK): One House Lodge, Onehouse, Stowmarket, Suffolk. (Former owner, Atlantis Bookshop, Museum St., London). Bee BROWN (NZ): Theosophical Society in New Zealand (Whanganui) E-mail: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz Charles W. COSIMANO ("Uncle Chuckie") E-mail: Drpsionic@aol.com John R. CROCKER E-mail: jrcecon@selway.umt.edu Liesel F. DEUTSCH E-mail: liesel@dreamscape.com Alexis Dolgorukii E-mail: alexei@slip.net Ellen DONALDSON (UK) Martin EUSER (NL) E-mail: euser@euronet.nl (See "Spirit" link from homepage) 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 Bill GANNON E-mail: gecorp@gnn.com R.A. GILBERT (UK): Member, TSE (Unattached). Bookseller, Occult, Masonic, Theological; (Scarce and o/p) 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 Keith IDELL E-mail: soa353@airmail.net 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) Makheru E-mail: makheru@aol.com 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 Author, "The Masters Revealed." 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 Michael ROGGE E-mail: wichm@xs4all.nl (See Link from Alan's homepage) Bjorn ROXENDAL E-mail: roxendal@sunrise.alpinet.net Jerry SCHUELER E-mail: 76400.1474@compuserve.com Kym Smith E-mail: kymsmith@micron.net 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 Robert WORD E-mail: WORD@tiw.com Member, TSA (Oakland, CA Lodge). Konstantin ZIATZEV (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: 48 To subscribe to the TI mailing list, send a message to listproc@vnet.net with the single line in the body of the message (leave Subject blank): subscribe ti-l Do not add a "sig" at the end. Alan Bain --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:39:24 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: <199610311804.NAA22943@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: kymsmith@micron.net > Someone help me please! > > Attached below is the only discussion I can find on abortion from a > Theosophical viewpoint - is there something else written that addresses this > particular issue? Did Blavatsky ever write on this again? > > Can one be pro-choice and a 'true' Theosophist? > I think question here is whether HPB is saying the very last word on the subject - like the pope - or she is giving you her viewpoint to consider as a Theosophist, from her own time and place. My interpretation of being a Theosophist is "one who thinks for oneself" and that a Theosophist would study and meditate on the issue, consider not only what HPB would say, but others' opinions and come to one's own conclusion. Frankly, the words "true Theosophist" makes me wonder if there is some kind of litmus test for that "true blue big T" and how many would pass it - or want to pass it, since we are all such individualists. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:34:17 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Brotherhood & other terms Message-ID: > >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:09:06 +0300 > >From: Kay Ziatz > >Reply-To: Kay Ziatz > >Errors-To: Kay_Ziatz@p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org > >Subject: Brotherhood & other terms > > > > > > 1. English terms. > >e>I'd say, then, keep the Sanskrit terms, and use more, when our English > >e>equivalents are subject to misunderstanding. > > Exactly right. Especially when we're speaking about principles - > >the word buddhi is sometimes translated as mind, intellegence, > >intuition, and both rupa & arupa-manas are also translated by > >the first two terms, altrough it's clear that these are very > >different things. Most translations of Bhagavad-gita are useless > >because of incorrect translations of these terms. > > Secondly, when speaking with ordinary people, the sanskrit terms > >attract their attention. This is known from big experience of Soci- > >ety for Krishna consciousness. It's important because now there's > >many false "masters". Today i heard from a head of Moscow thosoph- > >ists about a woman who held so called "seminars" where for 750000 > >roubles ($135) taught people that if they will live non-spiritual Years ago, I gave a talk on what to look for when you deal with a "spiritual" proponent. The key items are: 1. Do they want your money? 2. Do they promise miracles? 3. Do they try to take control of your conscience - directly or indirectly. 4. Do they want you channel into a belief system? 5. Do they set up themselves as somehow superior to you? If answer to any of them is YES, just run - dont even hesitate for a minute. I believe that no real spiritual knowledge or help is for sale. All good things in life are free. > > 2. Brotherhood. > > BTW, if someone don't likes "brotherhood", i suppose to replace it > >by "cousinehood" - it might affect both men & women :) > > But i personally support the original term "brotherhood". Annie > >Besant, who herself fighted for equal rights for women, never tried > >to replace it by some other term. Knowing the personalities of HPB and Besant, I totally agree with you. If there was even a hint of male superiority, they would not have put up with. > > > > 3. El. Publishing > >CH>In most cases, a simple read-only is sufficient. > >CH>There are e-book programs that protect from easy copying > > I don't understand at all what reason is to prevent copiing the theoso- > >phical material. Contrary, we should give a people a possibility for the > >further widespread. If christians kept copyright on their Bible, now > >no one should know about Christ :) When classics like Isis Unveiled or Secret Doctrine were written and sold, it was not with the expectation of HPB being able to make a living out of the authorship. I agree that "all" Theosophical material should be *free* for all. > > 5. Gays > >BL> I find her master quite inferior to the ones who wrote THE MAHATMA > >BL> LETTERS, at least in my opinion. By the way, I found the homophobic > >BL> reference: ESOTERIC HEALING, particularly around page 62-64. > > Even Bible condemns homosexuality, so D.K. didn't invent smth. new. > >We can accept in TS people of various sexual orientation, but "Esoteric > >healing" is a treatise about healthy life. It's two different things - > >if we say that meat is not a recommended meal for health, it doesn't > >mean that we carrying on "anti-meat discrimination". A very reasonable approach. > > > > Konstantin, 2:5020/360.4 Fidonet. Moscow, Russia, Earth. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:43:39 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: <961031194338_1679825548@emout17.mail.aol.com> Kym quotes HPB--> "The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence--with KARMA--that of the mother and the would-be future human being. The sin is not regarded by the occultists as one of a *religious* character,--for, indeed, there is no more of spirit and soul, for the matter of that, in a foetus or even in a child before it arrives at self-consciousness, then there is in any other small animal,--for we deny the absence of soul in either mineral, plant or beast, and believe but in the difference of degree. But foeticide is a crime against nature." Richard Ihle writes--> Thank you for sharing this, Kym. I had never seen it before, and it is certainly interesting. I would think that one could be "pro-choice" and be a ~theosophist~ but not necessarily a ~"T"heosophist~ if one goes along with the gradual "evolution" of the capitalized word to mean someone who subscribes to the doctrines articulated by H.P.B. or at least doctrines which are consistent with them. (I don't subscribe to this, though.) I am hoping that a "short-version" definition of small-t ~theosophy~ will someday take hold: "God-assisted speculation." This definition affirms the existence of a special category of valid knowledge which is not derived from empirical observation or science; however, it does not grant any particular theosophist, even H.P.B, final authority in anything--because one's own God-assisted speculation must always be used to evaluate how close someone else was to "God" when the speculation was made. I use ~God~ here to mean Atma-Buddhi (Self-Spirit) consciousness. Having said this, I suppose it may surprise some that I usually find H.P.B.'s writings to be very high and valid theosophy, indeed. Regarding the particular quoted passage, what she says about foeticide seems more right to me than wrong, but not necessarily for all of the articulated reasons--taken ~literally~--she previously gave. However, what she says about the "soul" being a matter of acquisition and "degree" rather than a "fixed given" brings out the familiar ~OH YES!~ that I can often get from reading H.P.B. Who knows? Perhaps the best chance for Theosophy (the organization/movement) to re-establish itself in the world is to suggest the possibilities that not only may a person have to "gain" a human soul (Self-awareness which can "hold It's own ground" at least at the desire-mental level) by a certain longer-term, "automatic" process, but that after a certain point a person may also have to take certain volitional steps not to lose the human soul as well. . . . Best Gold Bond wishes and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:11:44 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: brainstorming Message-ID: <32794E50.7FA2@sprynet.com> liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > It's my considered opinion that the first thing we need is less secrecy. The > ES is secret. Only their passwords; nothing else about the ES is secret. > Our Board meetings are secret, and what we get to know comes > late and partially, as it did with the last by-laws revisions. That is > entirely unacceptable. The membership has to know what's going on, and has > to have a say-so. Are they? Have you asked your representative, "What happened at the last Board meeting?" and have them not tell you? The New York Theosophical Society's newsletter carries a regular column on actions of our Board of Directors. > We certainly don't want to be told what to do, in our units, nor how to run > them. We need to be told in great detail what materials are available in > Wheaton for Study Centers; but we need to be able to adjust our programs to > what we like locally. On the other hand, I remember a time, when I was new > as President, when I asked for some help in finding topics for study, and > got very little help, except for a very old, dated 7 yellowed study guide of > some sort from the NE Federation President. That's not the case anymore. As Program Director of the NYTS, I received a lot of help from Ed Abdill, John Algeo, Nathan Greer, Elizabeth Trumpler, Michael Gomes, Anna Lemkow, Janet Macrae, Dora Kunz, and many others. All I needed to do was ask. > After several years of struggle, > I happen to have landed in Wheaton & found that there was all sorts of > material available which I didn't know anything about. I was aware of the material before I ever attended a meeting of the Theosophical Society; my wife used to borrow material by mail, and they had a nice catalogue. If that was available for non-members, I find it hard to believe that there was nothing available for members. Nathan Greer has been especially good at putting people together. He has enlisted my help at getting a number of Lodges on the Internet. If you let him know that you are available as a resource, he will recommend you to other Lodges who need your services. > ,yes" from the book agent, and then nothing. & etc ad nauseatum. Down in > Miami and here in New York City they find enough people to run a variety of > events. Ask Sy about what happened in Miami. The turnaround at the Miami Lodge was extremely impressive. > So, maybe that's something we could profitably discuss. Since it seems to be > that people become more interested in Branch meetings if they take an active > part in a phase of it, how do you get them to do it, in view of the known > fact that usually an organization is run by a few people who break their > butts, while the others just attend meetings. One thing that increased attendance at the members' meetings of the New York Lodge was using Michael Gomes' book, HPB TEACHES, as a basis for members' lectures. If you take a look at the table of contents, just about every chapter there is an excellent topic for a lecture or discussion. The member would use the article as a starting point, and do whatever additional research they wanted. We got a lot of great meetings that way. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:10:02 +1800 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: > > Kym, > As Theosophists, like doctors and lawyers, never agree on anything, of course > one can be pro-choice and be a true theosophist. > > Chuck the Heretic > Amen to that! -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:07:53 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: <32796989.1AC2@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Someone help me please! Ah! A real discussion! Thank you! > I am confused by many of her answers. She says the "fetus" doesn't have a > soul, like "small animals," and seems to call for governments to doubly > punish abortion. It would seem to follow through that the killing of small > animals should be severly punished (which sounds good to this tree-hugger). > How can it be "double suicide" if one is not yet viable? If "foeticide" is a > crime against nature, how does it differ from other crimes against nature, > or does it - Blavatsky seems to, on an emotional level, imply abortion is > different. I understand the karma argument (I think), but I am puzzled a > bit on the rest of her answer. Am I missing her point? Yes. First of all, note the title of the article: IS FOETICIDE A CRIME? At the time that the article (actually reply) was written, foeticide was indeed against the law. It would be helpful to read the article IS SUICIDE A CRIME?, as well. In any case, the short answer is that abortion brings on a lot of bad karma. That has to be taken into consideration if one has an abortion. What one has to consider is the question, "What will bring on the heaviest karmic debt, having the child, or having the abortion?" Remember abortion is never a good choice, but sometimes it's the best choice. Also, one has to remember what abortion is. It is not the killing of the fetus; the killing of the fetus is a RESULT of the abortion. It is the ending of the pregnancy. At this point, we have the technology to abort a pregnancy without necessarily killing the fetus. With the development of artificial wombs and better fetal transplant techniques, the abortion and the death of the fetus will eventually be separable. In the meantime, one also must realize that the mother's right to an abortion and the right of the fetus to live are two completely different rights which happen to be in opposition with each other. There are two limits, however: A woman's right to an abortion is NO GREATER than her right to any other operation, and the fetus' right to life is NO GREATER than the right of someone who has already been born to live. As a matter of fact, the condition of the fetus is very much like the condition of a person on a life support system, with the life support system in this case being a human being. Any case where one is justified in removing the life support system is certainly a case where abortion would be justified, as well. For example, if someone needs a heart transplant, and you're the only match, it will probably bring on bad karma for you to refuse to donate your heart, but it would be even worse karma for you to donate your heart (assuming, of course, you're still alive before the transplant). Donating a kidney or lung is a harder matter. Donating a pint of blood is probably not a problem, but even woman with a normal pregnancy is doing far more than donating a pint of blood. Once again, these are not just BS'ing types of issues. We are getting closer and closer to the technologies where rejection problems can be overcome. Living people donating organs for transplant is already an issue of controversy; in the United States, there are laws against people being paid for donating their organs. In other countries, that is not always the case; there are reports of reasonable credibility about forced organ transplants in China, for example. In terms of transplants from animals, such as baboons and pigs, what's an ethical vegetarian to do? The failure of ethical systems to keep up with technology has created situations like the Baby M. debacle, the Clipper chip, and the CDA. In terms of the Ancient Wisdom being a help, there IS a way. First of all, realize that the only difference between our technology and ancient magick is that we know how the technology works. Is there a real difference between the Internet and psychic communication between ceremonial magickians? Is there a real difference between a flying carpet and an airplane? Unfortunately, the translations of ancient laws on magick tend to leave much to be desired, because the translators considered magick to be non-existant, and accurate translations to therefore be a waste of time. But accurate translations CAN be made, and much can be gained. Finally, there is a rule of thumb I try to use when faced with a moral dilemma where I have time to think about the answer: Which action will, in the long run, benefit humanity the most? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 05:38:38 -0800 From: Art House Subject: A Serious Question Message-ID: <3279FD11.34BB@earthlink.net> Hi, Can I ask a serious question of those on the lists who are more or less of longstanding in things Theosophical? (I assume that those who are new to Theosophy or only familiar with the Society through the official literature might not have come across this as yet). Anyway, here's the question: How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of Masters"? Sincerely, Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 06:59:14 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Art House wrote: > Hi, > > Can I ask a serious question of those on the lists who are more or less > of longstanding in things Theosophical? (I assume that those who are new > to Theosophy or only familiar with the Society through the official > literature might not have come across this as yet). > > Anyway, here's the question: > > How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the > literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and > personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to > authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of > Masters"? > > Sincerely, > Mark Mark: the issue that you have raised has never been a problem to me personally. The fundamental objective of the TS has been to form a nucleus of people like you and me and rest of us here who see what we can do to help humanity. To me to deal with humanity in abstract is difficult. Just to deal with people I come into contact with every day and at every contact I try to see how I can be helpful, kind and considerate and contribute to their welfare, is how I deal with helping humanity. When the focus and priority of my actions are on this, the questions you raised becomes not very significant from my personal point of view. this is just my humble approach. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 08:19:30 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <3279F8DD.6524@earthlink.net> > How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the > literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and > personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to > authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of > Masters"? A close view of the difficulties people went through during those times shows that HPB and others tried various approaches to the presentation of truth -- some of which worked and some of which created glamours. The struggles were more in the working out of right relations among themselves and a fair amount of HPB's writings before The Secret Doctrine were written filtered through these struggles. Through this she sought, as the Soul within, to find and express right methods of work. The Secret Doctrine itself is, however a completely "pure" work, so to speak, in that all that is contained therein was kept free from the personal influences. It can take many years (perhaps decades), even for an Initiate, to transmute the circumstances and personality difficulties in which they incarnated in order to create and bring forth such a pure expression. Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:12:08 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Art House wrote: > How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the > literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and > personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to > authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of > Masters"? IMO, this is a self-defeating inquiry. Books are just black characters printed on white paper that do not carry with themselves any inherent value--it is the reader who reads out information and translates it into supposed values and truths. As to the "objective reality," interpretation of the so called facts depends on one's cultural, racial, etc. background, the level of evolutionary development attained, and so on. In general, what is known as facts are difficult to untangle conglomerates of sensory data, opinions, emotional reactions, social conditioning, built-in structures of our thought, etc.,--so the so called "admitted facts" (even though they may have been "admitted" by the major theosophical players themselves) may not be what we think them to be. All that is hopelessly confusing unless you are ready to rely on something of a different nature. The only reliable vantage point seems to be one's own higher self, and there is enough personal evidence supporting it. In the light of the higher self, some 'facts' and seeming contradictions simply disappear, while surviving ones acquire a new meaning, more fluid and reconciliatory. Why don't you ask your own Self about it rather than posting a question to the discussion list? If you are serious, do you believe that answers to existential questions like questions about truth, authority, etc. can come from the outside? Even if you receive some good (in your opinion) answers, do you think you will be ready to wholeheartedly accept them with no further doubts and suspicions likely to emerge in a short time? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 11:49:36 +0000 From: "Alicia N. Pineda" Subject: Re: THEOS-SPAN digest 37 Message-ID: <19961102114929.AAB23461@LOCALNAME> Jesus Ernesto: Creo que todos hemos recibido su mensaje. Por mi parte, puedo decirle que no lo he entendido. Me parece que su programa para enviar sus mensajes tiene also que hace que cada tres o cuatro palabras de su mensaje tiene algunos caracteres extranos y hacen su mensaje muy confuso. No se como recibira esta nota de respuesta que le estoy enviando (quiere decir que al responderle yo, y enviarle de regreso su mensaje, usted podra ver los caracteres que le menciono antes). He entendido apenar que usted ha estado muy ocupado con sus actividades. Espero que todos esten bien. Un saludo para todos por alla. Y mucha suerte para usted con su sistema de enviar mensajes. Ciao. At 05:46 PM 10/31/96 +0000, you wrote: > >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:15:09 -0500 >From: Jeszs Ernesto Cruz Martmnez >To: theos-span@vnet.net >Subject: Hola a todos!! >Message-ID: <3278D08D.4BAD@planet.com.mx> > >Hola a todos los del foro!! > Soy Jes=FAs de la Logia Unidad de M=E9xico, gracias a mi amigo Rodolfo >Don, por haberme dado la direcci=F3n del foro de teosof=EDa en espa=F1ol,= > la >causa de que la comunicaci=F3n con ustedes se habia cortado, es que mi >m=E1quina se contagi=F3 de un virus raro, que s=F3lo invadia mi conexi=F3= >n de >Internet, as=ED que bueno, pues tuve que darle "mate" y con esto tuve que >estar fuera como 4 d=EDas, mientras ten=EDa tiempo de ver que ten=EDa la >m=E1quina y c=F3mo corregir este error, luego tuve que presentar un ex=E1= >men >en la universidad y ya ven, hasta ahora puedo escribirles, creo que no >han tenido ninguna acci=F3n por aqu=ED, as=ED que me gustar=EDa saber si = >les >interesa estar en el foro y participar, creo es muy importante, ac=E1 en >M=E9xico, discutimos algunos de los escritos que nos llegaron del Theos >World, y de la Logia en L=EDnea de Josh Carpentier, por favor visiten la >p=E1gina de la Logia Unidad y m=E1ndenme sus impresiones, son muy valiosa= >s, >para Gabriel Hern=E1ndez, oye, ya habla mano, te comieron la Lengua los >Ratones? :=3D), parece que hablo al vaciiiiooooooo.... Saludos a todos!! >------------------------------ >Jes=FAs Ernesto Cruz Mart=EDnez >unidad@planet.com.mx >http://www.planet.com.mx/~unidad/index.htm > Alicia Cheers...and you will live longer From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 96 15:00:51 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Mark's Serious Question Message-ID: <199611012000.PAA10116@leo.vsla.edu> Dear Mark, First, I think it important to note that many of the deceptions and power plays were never admitted, and many if not most Theosophists continue to deny them (or admit them for some early Theosophists but not others, more likely.) But as someone who believes that HPB, Olcott, Judge, Besant and Leadbeater ALL behaved in ways that are not exemplary, yet values the writings of most of them, I'll respond as an individual. No one before or since HPB has carried out a spiritual search that was as world-embracing, as audacious, as open-minded, as vigorous, to the best of my knowledge. And yet, in some ways I agree with Hodgson's description of her as one of the most ingenious impostors in history-- in that she concealed the real details of her life and promoted a largely self-invented myth. >From an astrological point of view, the question then can be seen as "How can you love a Leo?"/"How can you not love them?" Leos are notoriously prone to self-invention, exaggeration, and outright untruth in service of making a story more interesting or appealing. They make good actors. But on the credit side, Leos are warm-hearted, generous, courageous, and strong willed. Since both HPB and Olcott were Leos, I think the character of early TS history is profoundly marked by the traits of that sign. And no matter what sign they were, if a movement is founded by two people of the same sign it is likely to show the strengths and weaknesses of that sign. So I don't really reconcile the good and the bad, but rather just accept them and don't feel the need to belong to something which is "all good." At the present I feel more affiliated with the ARE than the TS, but I can see the same kind of dark/light shading in Cayce's Piscean character as in the TS leaders' Leo traits. He was self-sacrificing, modest, nonconfrontational, and devoted to his loved ones in ways that HPB and Olcott can't touch. But on the minus side, he was easily discouraged, easily manipulated, and passively psychic in a way that makes the TS Founders look good in comparison. That's the long answer. The short one is-- as with anyone, you have to take the good with the bad. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:15:44 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: brainstorming Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > Nathan Greer has been especially good at putting people together. He > has enlisted my help at getting a number of Lodges on the Internet. If > you let him know that you are available as a resource, he will recommend > you to other Lodges who need your services. I am very glad to read the above. I am very glad to know that Nathan Greer is instrumental in getting a number of Lodges on the Internet. I am sure that members of these lodges who have access to Internet are subscribed to theos-xxxx and are lurking in large numbers. BTW, it was from Nathan Greer that I got the very first e-mail message from an officer of the National Board of Directors. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 96 13:35 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: A Serious question Message-ID: Max wrote: >Why don't you ask your own Self about it rather than posting a question >to the discussion list? If you are serious, do you believe that answers >to existential questions like questions about truth, authority, etc. can >come from the outside? Even if you receive some good (in your opinion) >answers, do you think you will be ready to wholeheartedly accept them >with no further doubts and suspicions likely to emerge in a short time? I think, rather than Mark keeping the question to himself, it may have been more helpful and constructive if you had kept the above answer to yourself. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 96 13:55 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: HPB and Besant's approval Message-ID: Kay writes: > >> > 2. Brotherhood. >> > But i personally support the original term "brotherhood". Annie >> >Besant, who herself fighted for equal rights for women, never tried >> >to replace it by some other term. Ramadoss answered: > > Knowing the personalities of HPB and Besant, I totally agree with >you. If there was even a hint of male superiority, they would not have >put up with. Kym flips after reading it: Really?! It may have been more of an issue of prioritizing. One must know what battle to fight when. HPB and Besant were in the middle of trying to firmly establish Theosophy in a time period that was less than welcoming. They had to use words that spoke to the people of that time. We don't know, not having been privy to private conversations with the two women, whether they did or did not feel the word was guilty of exclusion. I do know that they "put up" with a lot of stuff they didn't like (per biographies), but that doesn't mean they approved. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 96 14:15 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 713 Message-ID: >Richard Ihle writes--> >I would think that one could be "pro-choice" and be a ~theosophist~ but not >necessarily a ~"T"heosophist~ if one goes along with the gradual "evolution" >of the capitalized word to mean someone who subscribes to the doctrines >articulated by H.P.B. or at least doctrines which are consistent with them. > (I don't subscribe to this, though.) > >I am hoping that a "short-version" definition of small-t ~theosophy~ will >someday take hold: "God-assisted speculation." So, a person who is a Theosophist (capital T) is one who accepts the writings of HPB as the foundation, or fundamental doctrine of theosophy? And a theosophist (little t) is someone who looks more to the "spiritual" and "subjective" side of the philosophy? > >Best Gold Bond wishes and Yes! to raging women do they owe their success! :-) :-) . . .perhaps I should demand my cut. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 96 14:40 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: abortion debate Message-ID: Bart wrote: > > In the meantime, one also must realize that the mother's right to an >abortion and the right of the fetus to live are two completely different >rights which happen to be in opposition with each other. There are two >limits, however: A woman's right to an abortion is NO GREATER than her >right to any other operation, and the fetus' right to life is NO GREATER >than the right of someone who has already been born to live. As a matter >of fact, the condition of the fetus is very much like the condition of a >person on a life support system, with the life support system in this >case being a human being. Any case where one is justified in removing >the life support system is certainly a case where abortion would be >justified, as well. I am very appreciative of the time and effort you put into answering my inquiry. However, beggin' pardons, the argument, though interesting, seems fundamentally flawed. The comparisons cited are the epitome of "comparing apples and oranges." Should you decide to respond, we may be better off doing it through private post, since we could be accused, rightly or wrongly, of expanding an issue outside the realm of Theosophy, or theosophy. Thanks, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 23:14:02 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: A Serious Question Message-ID: <01BBC84A.672A9680@rvik-ppp-118.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBC84A.673B5F60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ---------- Mark Asks: How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of Masters"? Sincerely, Mark Dear Mark Einar here: You seem to be confronted with an archaic problem, i.e. that of the = colored glasses. And don=B4t think that you are the only one - We all = are!=20 Hear what Buddha told: Believe nothing, o monks, merely because you have been told it ... or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide. -Gautama Buddha H.P.B. herself had a lot to say about the difficulty of discerning = between our own colored views - on the teacher, and the teaching itself. = Almost every teacher / writer / saint becomes the victim of "evil = tongues", rightly or wrongly, living or post-mortem, usually by those = that can't stand their fame. Of those I revere, I can name = Krishnamurti, Carlos Castaneda, Amrit Desai, and many others, not to = mention C.W. Leadbeater, H.P. Blavatsky, A.A. Baily and even the Masters = themselves. But there is always another side of the coin. Many people, = (most people, actually) believe in the teaching on the ground of the = reputation of the teacher, not being able to "discriminate" the = teachings validity on its own merit. To my knowledge there is no = reliable way to validate any teaching by any other means than given by = the Buddha himself. Therefore I try not to listen to any "gossip" = whatsoever concerning the authors or organizations that promote any = teachings. This doesn't mean that I don't evaluate teachings or = teachers. I only try to keep my opinions to myself and free from outside = influences. And most importantly - I keep them loose, willing to = reexamine every aspect in the most positive context available. I try to = approach the truth, knowing that I'll never, ever get it all. In my 25 years of intense study, meditation (and teaching) of the most = different spiritual paths, I find them more and more approaching each = other, mostly telling the same truth from a slightly different angels = and with slightly different words. This has now become my PRIMARY = reconciliation within the vast and profound flora of spiritual = teachings. In fact I now have a "bell" ringing - not "true / false" - = but "important / non-important" for most of what I read or hear. Freedom of thought is based on an open mind, a positive skepticism, = taking nothing for granted, but at the same time giving everthing a = chance, and closing no doors - NOT on being able to choose what opinions = one likes! So; Don't listen to what others gossip or partake in it. Never defend = your opinions or your favorite teaching / teacher. It, he, she, will = stand for itself/himself/herself (bah!) if true and solid.=20 True Discrimination is based on Reconciliation, which is to Understand, = deeply, profoundly, - and True Understanding is the ONLY key to True = Love and Compassion. This is how I try to do it, but YOU don't have to listen to that. ;-) Einar, from Iceland. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let's change the world for the better, by each of us changing ourselves, TOGETHER! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBC84A.673B5F60 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhAXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADGy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAFwAAAFJFOiBBIFNlcmlvdXMgUXVlc3Rpb24A tAcBBYADAA4AAADMBwsAAQAXAA4AAgAFAAsBASCAAwAOAAAAzAcLAAEAEwAXAC4ABQA8AQEJgAEA IQAAADJFRTMwRjg3MTQzNEQwMTFBMTBENDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAL4GAQOQBgBQCwAAEgAAAAsAIwAA AAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AKD82V5KyLsBHgBwAAEAAAAXAAAAUkU6IEEg U2VyaW91cyBRdWVzdGlvbgAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbvISl7Shw/jPTQUEdChDURFU1QAAAAAHgAe DAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAABhbm5hc2JAaXNtZW5udC5pcwAAAAMABhBYv8aM AwAHEPwKAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAAAtLS0tLS0tLS0tTUFSS0FTS1M6SE9XRE9ZT1VSRUNPTkNJTEVU SEVWQUxVRVRIQVRZT1VGSU5ESU5USEVDT05URU5UU09GVEhFTElURVJBVFVSRVdJVEhUSEVBRE1J VFRFREZBAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA1QkAANEJAAAWEQAATFpGdS9gPJv/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkC AGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM7cC5AcTAoM0EswUxX0KgIsIzwnZOxef MjU1AoAHCoENsQtgbmcxMDNWOQr7FWIyFWBjAEAggwqFCotsaTE4MALR4GktMTQ0DfAM0B5juQtZ MTYKoANgE9BjBUDOLSCHHI8dkzM2HwcUURcL8QXQCsBrFLBza3NOOiK8H/cKhUhvB+BkaG8geQhg IBegBaBuQmMDEGUgdGgnUHZ3B0AKUCdhYQVAJpIeMG78ZCALgCdjJvET0AIwBCC8b2YnYgqFHcAT 0HIoMB8IcCdQA/AncCdjYWRtNyrQE9Ao0GYA0CnHIGVZCsBseSZQBZBlBTBpAQIgcywgaG9heKsH kQBwZAqFcASQcwIgLwdAL4AmMASQIBPAcnXcZ2cnQCzXAhB1KMAvofcoBDBBJ1BwCHAwIAAgLGFk dG8KhWF1J3ECMGmeYygwK+EowSexaWQ0gu0ncW00sydxaTBhCGEt4Nko5iJCIBEngHIugARwnynh CoUjoBPBEaAiPwqF3lMLgC3gF6AtkCw4VyPA3wqHItsKjxuvPKJELWE6yk5FC4AKwTexZTo8dVnP JqERsDWxM2AgYilDA1H/KYEo0CtzA5EKwBFxNGAvgA8DYAJgE+AuYGkuZS5/KAQs9RcTLGEw0DjQ EbBzHURQQSjBJmALkCdiNP8FQCdwC4Aj0CgXCsAnVAIgRy2RAiAnUC0gVyvhbFsDIEgBISWnPuJ3 KCJCmHVkZBGAM1FsZEB2vzsfI1MMgkrwOiAIkHYnUPZuN5ELgGcuYCZwBGBHQH8uUDx2TaIHgDoS QaE0cHX/EbAmgxGATjFBsAnwS2Mo4P0FQC5SgE96BbFQplJRBAD7J2ArAGQq0C4hB0BPa1N59yaS JpERoWxOMAQgUWMHcHxhZwuALGEq0FKmT3pE/yZwTmFBoU4ESrNW8idgLWD/EXAwURPQSXAEICaR T39Isfc0ACniF6BzL5AgUQIQW1H/J4FbdVivTbJdwUqyL8BOIVpyLmBhAYAwUWQn4WX8eGEsIC/g LhI0swBwB0D/E7AEAE9rKGdBh2IwJyBOMftBgSdyZzfxT2snckGwSODdHjB0LmAncjBAbCyQK0H/ KfFJYkGwTqEEICEWZ4UoMb8mYCBQBRBI4VpWNMJjHcDPGqAzUU9rNeNha1QDONB5WxRndTUwREAh LHB2LX5HM/FikEtQSwRLzz1uSPAuUC5CRFA3sVcxKgCfEYBjUSqwWiFBgXNhLaA/AaBdsidyVLAN 0DRgdWz+dEixKgBUsATwBJFs0kGwfnQwQFHRWzImMAOgRTZ2/QiQd2ohSHFe2mGxNfRbZJ9s0irQ dKJEUDx1QWwEYN8TwC1QYYEtoFt2LytgBRD/YfJ+gHXAC4BaMgWgB4Inc+80YC4QNcAp8SJOIAMR M2AfGqAKUDkgLmAFEGdodP9IokqRQiEw0DpAKrF5sGzh9wWxMCATwC0EYDMRQ/FQ4P51SWFQgX3h LoBQ8SgTNHD8bicFQBPANegskAeARFBsIE8qAoVySSbBYYFlny5giCCGAU5QhzEgSwUQvHNoiSEI cC4QLmBDLXEvfWCKQYZiCYBhLmBBbf9+sT7BfzF7FAOBSLE3oi5RH1oSQYEHgDRBYwFDLlf1RFBM LWBkQbA0gWGhdAIvSvALYCewKcBrgwFBLv+QUErwC3AtkTTCTiEpBDjFfzWDVzSPgXY0K0FUUQdA d/910C7SN5MwcG9hRLgLgERQtyOgjKEvkG8LUIiRKH1T95ZGLKGEwylaRyj1e7d6Nf8JwDGiLOYX oDLAAZBi4yz1v3qnWhRs0gGgJ0ImcCJ3gvMFEGKjZSJ7awQgNQMq0J9IsnwyeONQMViBIFRO8ZUt oGtOYHcnQGRnJ1P/k4ROYCbBHcCdY5QBQXI1B/+Mknu3hSGMl1AhBiIoEQOg/1ggkVKFIydQSwVH IJKCfJH+VEAyXqGIAjCQLaCNVR3A/xPBUeJyzwBBdwCkoqrvHGD/N1BmwAQQBSCesGEYKVJ3tp8r wzQBBbAp0XjRcmcAcPxpemLTMgUgAQRgpI1GEf+o0FRRJmAHkIYiplIoBIgg/0aBhjFOICfBNVOf J16yW4T/RhGIIEiDqZJBgW5gLfChgv+WYAuAsSShcnSjNMIDUAng/7nhA3BdopTTC4AacApQOeH/ RhV9UwdwMvIAcIIySRCIIP+4AzWTFzCFcS5gA/BJcGzU/ybBYnQtQX2zONBeUyj1ltTvfWBUwU4x KWN4bqEnsAMQ551itwK3lWFwIAFbkV7UvzCgJ3AuYKHCr2S0cidJcf9I4GGDrqOiMFQxbqFJcFKm /kmg0S2gGdAmgC1hKdN/Uf8J8FDxE8BLEIMBB4BUsWLU/ig143vFmCAs9X1TdqIygX9/YV5ANlAq 0ITBL4AoMGj/LlGIIGUENaKEITSkzsTDtf9s0luCjMTJ0X1ht2JcAa9m33XAiUHEc7o0S1BzHcCC FP/MWBqROiAu0ytk038yUQWwfmSzBhGAotIH4H+UoYJQwFJJTUFSWSbHBzD/YuMrcij1J7B9cTTC IAExk/8okBcxS1Ap8cz4sonH4SySr4gR19JRY0tQIlpRbJ6w32uhWCFs8EkQWhIiMJEnUF9+gCyQ XCCeoUkQYl3BIue8Z35xTmBuLbxnnrBeov99UynxSrOIInUBBbEngArA/VKmRgnRJmCAo4VRMLCC IP1UQmI40CxhYwO4cVHRYqG/ZvB1IcFXJAAt8icgc0Px/25BbNJOZV6TCcC8wQmALmD/4YIoMdIY B3Gm8tAjYYHqxP9LUBFxOeF7FGywwWHqcyZR47AiSRBOT1R6Ip0MEXA/vhJKpLiHSNIdwG5gcyHx ISxTbztZ0YYiqkjyJP+M42axreKDkwrAbkSgUkRQ/wfArrINsQnwKNBbI/J4BcD7WyMskHYFsCrR e6h+gF8m/4gQaHEngC5giaC+RYZVXqJdfEQvqEX+MHSFKOdQaP4hmCAGkMRiNKQvwDUhfKe6VOCS RJ4IYvLnKlLZS9++UUcgxAFUUiZwVTHDhnL/LmANsC3wgvLbZoLySRA0wo8BUwUYfAN/9E9OTNkQ p25go9MBU0xvbEVD2ED/PKCt4Q7QX52zM9diJjHDF8cmYWhi4YJZT1W0tVFjx6obKBJEUDstKSEs P9N7LmC6Q0kt4BqBALA8dX7PEy8T+jx1jpB0J5PA7nL/ojTWwlIhXqZ4MY8CPHWFIX/QZCoAUOAV xINjVxY6VlSAT0dFVEhFUvOWVxP/FD88sX08cAAeUAAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREB8AAABAAAcwAJT2 MyrIuwFAAAgwAJT2MyrIuwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAABod ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBC84A.673B5F60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:22:16 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Brotherhood & other terms Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >> > 2. Brotherhood. >> > BTW, if someone don't likes "brotherhood", i suppose to replace it >> >by "cousinehood" - it might affect both men & women :) >> > But i personally support the original term "brotherhood". Annie >> >Besant, who herself fighted for equal rights for women, never tried >> >to replace it by some other term. > > Knowing the personalities of HPB and Besant, I totally agree with >you. If there was even a hint of male superiority, they would not have >put up with. > Absolutely. However, since then there has been more than a hint of male superiority, and some of the worst of it has been seen on theos-l. In TI we *don't* put up with it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 23:22:55 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: A Serious Obsession? Message-ID: In message <3279F8DD.6524@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes > The Secret Doctrine itself is, however a completely "pure" work, >so to speak, in that all that is contained therein was kept free from >the personal influences. It can take many years (perhaps decades), even >for an Initiate, to transmute the circumstances and personality >difficulties in which they incarnated in order to create and bring forth >such a pure expression. What? Even the long diatribes against professor this or theological that? These are clearly Blavatsky speaking, and not HPB - a distinction she acknowledged herself more than once. I regret (genuinely) that I see in your post the same kind of worship of a book as many fundamentalist Christians do with the Bible. In saying it can take many years, decades, or whatever, I have to ask how on earth can you be sure this is true. Can you define what you understand (not what the book says) by "An Initiate." ?? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:39:58 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: brainstorming Message-ID: <199611020145.UAA05333@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > > > It's my considered opinion that the first thing we need is less secrecy. The > > ES is secret. > > Only their passwords; nothing else about the ES is secret. > I know very little about the ES and the only thing I was able to get out of a couple of the members is that it was a more advanced study group. Prerequisites for joining was two years of vegetarianism and sex with only your married partner. I'd be delighted if you could give or direct me to more information. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:09:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <327AC994.5FCD@sprynet.com> Art House wrote: > How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the > literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and > personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to > authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of > Masters"? I'm not sure if there's a sentence in there; can you please rephrase the question? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 21:27:16 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <327ADBA5.3F62@earthlink.net> -- Are you serious? I thought the whole point of this list was to be able to freely discuss these things? It's a valid question considering the facts. There were a lot of dubious activities that went into the foundation of the TS. I was just wondering (because I am struggling with it myself) how some of the members in longstanding might have reconciled the dirty laundry? (i.e, the "cabinet", the supposed apports that had assistance behind the scenes, the "miraculous" apparitions of the Masters by means of parlor tricks and puppetry, to say nothing of the long sucession of questionable "letters" that were bandied about to support everything and everybody's point of view in the grabs for power that went on... I mean, really, what if I just said that Master Morya was making me ask this question, and that If pressed, would produce a letter to prove it,... would that make it any easier to talk about this?) There was some wool-pulling that went on, and now, all these years later, I just wonder how those in longstanding feel about "the pie in the sky" vs "the mud on the boots?" A serious question, and not for the meek. It does indeed reach down to the very footings. The replies so far have been interesting. God Bless Free Speech! M From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Nov 2 05:13:08 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious question Message-ID: <199611021013.FAA22440@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Max wrote: > >>Why don't you ask your own Self about it rather than posting a question >>to the discussion list? If you are serious, do you believe that answers >>to existential questions like questions about truth, authority, etc. can >>come from the outside? Even if you receive some good (in your opinion) >>answers, do you think you will be ready to wholeheartedly accept them >>with no further doubts and suspicions likely to emerge in a short time? > >I think, rather than Mark keeping the question to himself, it may have been >more helpful and constructive if you had kept the above answer to yourself. > >Kym Agreed. However, on both sides. Max has a good point to make, but the point to which I am referring is not "keep it to yourself". Mark, I agree with Max that the answers you seek CAN be found in the Universal Self, however, in order to understand that which comes from the U. Self, you must learn to understand it. In order to learn, you must ask questions. Max, I hope that the former is the point you were trying to make. This is a discussion list. And most of what is discussed is centered around helping humanity. I assume that Mark is a human.:) His question seemed appropriate enough to me to be posted here. I think perhaps your point was taken more offensively than it was meant to be. But, then, I as well could be mistaken. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 07:36:54 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <327B4062.34EC@earthlink.net> > How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the > literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and > personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to > authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of > Masters"? A close view of the difficulties people went through during those times shows that HPB and others tried various approaches to the presentation of truth -- some of which worked and some of which created glamours. The struggles were more in the working out of right relations among themselves and a fair amount of HPB's writings before The Secret Doctrine were written filtered through these struggles. Through this she sought, as the Soul within, to find and express right methods of work. The Secret Doctrine itself is, however a completely "pure" work, so to speak, in that all that is contained therein was kept free from the personal influences. It can take many years (perhaps decades), even for an Initiate, to transmute the circumstances and personality difficulties in which they incarnated in order to create and bring forth such a pure expression. Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:33:19 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611021333.IAA15697@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Patrick Alessandra Jr. > The Secret Doctrine itself is, however a completely "pure" work, > so to speak, in that all that is contained therein was kept free from > the personal influences. It can take many years (perhaps decades), even > for an Initiate, to transmute the circumstances and personality > difficulties in which they incarnated in order to create and bring forth > such a pure expression. > Boy, you ain't just whistlin' Dixie on that last sentence, Patrick! Looking at it from an astrologer's point of view, one can also see that in most individuals charts, there are positive and negative potentials for a personality. There is also potential for the Soul's energy to express itself through the Ascendant. How much and when in a lifetime is another matter. I believe there are personality difficulties in every organization owing to the fact that personalities are made up different energies, some that harmonize with others and some that conflict with others. Then there is chart of the organization itself, which colors the day-to-day and long-term operations. We're all the doing the best we can, with what we got, so that hopefully, we can do a lot better in the future. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:36:35 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: A Serious question Message-ID: <199611021336.IAA16544@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > Agreed. However, on both sides. Max has a good point to make, but the point > to which I am referring is not "keep it to yourself". Mark, I agree with Max > that the answers you seek CAN be found in the Universal Self, however, in > order to understand that which comes from the U. Self, you must learn to > understand it. In order to learn, you must ask questions. Is that like Do-It-U-Self? -Ann E. Bermingham :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:37:12 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Art House wrote: > I thought the whole point of this list was to be able to freely discuss > these things? Surely. That's is why it is called unmoderated/censored. Let us continue to discuss as we all have done in the past. > > It's a valid question considering the facts. There were a lot of dubious > activities that went into the foundation of the TS. I was just wondering > (because I am struggling with it myself) how some of the members in > longstanding might have reconciled the dirty laundry? (i.e, the > "cabinet", the supposed apports that had assistance behind the scenes, > the "miraculous" apparitions of the Masters by means of parlor tricks > and puppetry, to say nothing of the long sucession of questionable > "letters" that were bandied about to support everything and everybody's > point of view in the grabs for power that went on... I mean, really, > what if I just said that Master Morya was making me ask this question, > and that If pressed, would produce a letter to prove it,... would that > make it any easier to talk about this?) The production of the letters has been discussed rather extensively and all the evidence points out to the authenticity of the letters. > > There was some wool-pulling that went on, and now, all these years > later, I just wonder how those in longstanding feel about "the pie in > the sky" vs "the mud on the boots?" A serious question, and not for the > meek. It does indeed reach down to the very footings. > > The replies so far have been interesting. > God Bless Free Speech! > > M > MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:40:53 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: HPB and Besant's approval Message-ID: <199611021340.IAA17833@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: kymsmith@micron.net > Kay writes: > > > >> > 2. Brotherhood. > >> > But i personally support the original term "brotherhood". Annie > >> >Besant, who herself fighted for equal rights for women, never tried > >> >to replace it by some other term. > > Ramadoss answered: > > > > Knowing the personalities of HPB and Besant, I totally agree with > >you. If there was even a hint of male superiority, they would not have > >put up with. > I'm sure HPB and Besant may have approved of indoor plumbing as well, but hopefully most of us have moved on to better bathroom facilities. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 08:19:23 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <327B4A50.48B9@earthlink.net> > > It can take many years (perhaps decades), even > > for an Initiate, to transmute the circumstances and personality > > difficulties in which they incarnated in order to create and bring forth > > such a pure expression. > > > Boy, you ain't just whistlin' Dixie on that last sentence, Patrick! > > Looking at it from an astrologer's point of view, one can also see > that in most individuals charts, there are positive and negative > potentials for a personality. Indeed, it seems that people on the path do usually have an adventurous combination of squares and oppositions (like four squares to Uranus with Venus opposed!), hopefully with one or two key trines and perhaps a stellium to show the way to resolution. Part of the sacrifice of incarnation is supposed to be the taking on of some personality "stuff" that is part of the general karma of humanity and transmuting it as one struggles across the decades. This is certainly evident in HPB's life! P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:48:34 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 713 Message-ID: <961102104833_1813435520@emout02.mail.aol.com> Kym writes--> So, a person who is a Theosophist (capital T) is one who accepts the writings of HPB as the foundation, or fundamental doctrine of theosophy? And a theosophist (little t) is someone who looks more to the "spiritual" and "subjective" side of the philosophy? Richard Ihle writes--> It's an absurd situation more or less gradually "imposed" upon us by those who were not content with the expression ~The Theosophical Philosophy~ to represent HPB and HPB-consistent doctrine. (I always thought that even this was overweening to begin with: it should probably have been ~The Principal Theosophical Philosophy~, which itself already seems more than a little arrogant.) Anyway, a sizeable percentage of the membership as well as perhaps the bulk of the general public now just think of HPB's Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis, and some closely related doctrines and writings ~as~ "Theosophy." In particular, much of the established leadership does not seem content with the fact that HPB will undoubtedly go down in history as the greatest Theosophist of all times; they seem to want want to establish her ~as~ Theosophy itself. Fortunately, I guess, they still allow all other "knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception" to be called ~theosophy~. Logically speaking, of course, there seems little need for the uncapitalized word ~theosophy~. Or perhaps "God-assisted speculation" should get the capital and the mere passing along of (without validating it by means of one's own transcendental resources) ~studied~ Theosophy should be called ~theosophy~. At this point the exclusive and irrevocable linking of ~Theosophy~ with HPB doctrine cannot be said to be a done-deal. If and when it becomes a done-deal, we will have become a complete-cult, with HPB-doctrine experts and proponents running things pretty much without regard for the more general Truth-seekers. Hey, wait a minute. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 11:04:56 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Mark's Serious Question Message-ID: <199611021708.MAA06817@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: K. Paul Johnson > No one before or since HPB has carried out a spiritual search > that was as world-embracing, as audacious, as open-minded, as > vigorous, to the best of my knowledge. And yet, in some ways I > agree with Hodgson's description of her as one of the most > ingenious impostors in history-- in that she concealed the real > details of her life and promoted a largely self-invented myth... Not unlike many of our American politicians and entertainers and maybe even a few current spiritual icons floating around. People seem to want to believe that there is someone who is larger than Life itself and has all the answers. A perfect being who will always be there to feed them what they need - an easy governmental solution or some astral massage. Let's not forget CWL, that Leo rising, who built up an ecclesiastical and theosophical myth around himself that we're still talking about. It's always deflating when we realize the people have warts, but as KPJ said, we have to take them as they are. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:49:25 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: A Serious question Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Nov 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Max wrote: > > >Why don't you ask your own Self about it rather than posting a question > >to the discussion list? If you are serious, do you believe that answers > >to existential questions like questions about truth, authority, etc. can > >come from the outside? Even if you receive some good (in your opinion) > >answers, do you think you will be ready to wholeheartedly accept them > >with no further doubts and suspicions likely to emerge in a short time? > > I think, rather than Mark keeping the question to himself, it may have been > more helpful and constructive if you had kept the above answer to yourself. > > Kym Please reread my email again and notice that I did not give any "answers." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 12:40:12 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: brainstorming Message-ID: <199611021749.MAA23494@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Bart, I need to reply to a couple of things you said. On the whole, the picture you present is much improved over what I found or rather didn't find when I became President of the now defunct (a number of years after I left) Paterson Lodge. About the ES. If only their password is secret, they've changed a lot since I was in it (for a short time). Please subscribe me to the NYTS Newsletteer. I'll send you my address to your personal e-mail address. Re: the people from whom you received help .... some of them are in Wheaton, and some of them belong to the NYTS. The ones in the NYTS I didn't know in the beginning. Lateron, as I became familiar, some of them came to give us programs now & then, which was a lot, because it was a long ride over from Manhattan to Nutley NJ. As for the one's in Wheaton, I didn't know them either. And the catlogue from the Library wasn't as yet in existence. When I started out, the group was having an audio tape every week, and that was all. The members who were there, weren't much help with figuring out program either, until we got started on a different track, but that took some doing on my part. When things were rolling, we did something similar at some of our meetings than you do at members' meetings. We'd select a topic, ask the Library for a number of books each covering a different facet of our topic. on long term loan (for the Branch), and then each one would report back on the book they'd read. That worked out real well. We also went through a basic theosophy text bit by bit, after a while, also did "The Flight of the Eagle" with people taking turns facilitating a chapter. And then one of them talked about something that interested them, or we had speakers come through. But they were Theosophists I had met or learned about, I never got any kind of list from Wheaton saying that so n so is available, except for Bing Escudero. I had the most fun researching a talk on biofeedback. I think one of our best meetings was a Krishnamurti film, followed by a pot luck dinner, for which one woman brought her guitar & sang. But that was a long time after I became President. The members didn't want to expand the Lodge, so I guess finally they contracted it out of existence. A couple of people were President after me. It's a shame, because by now there are a number of study centers in North Jersey, so there is a demand. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 21:05:30 +0000 From: Alan Subject: WELCOME! Message-ID: Theosophy International Welcomes Matt Henderson! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:25:16 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Mahatma Letters Message-ID: A few of the Mahatmas Letters to A.P.Sinnett have been placed in the TI pages below. See files mahatmas.txt and mahatmas zip. Direct URL: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/DIRECTORY/HISTORY/ A service for Theosophy International Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 13:01:15 -0500 From: Jeszs Ernesto Cruz Martmnez Subject: Re: THEOS-SPAN digest 38 Message-ID: <327B8C6B.591B@planet.com.mx> theos-span@vnet.net wrote: > > Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 11:49:36 +0000 > From: "Alicia N. Pineda" > To: theos-span@vnet.net > Subject: Re: THEOS-SPAN digest 37 > Message-ID: <19961102114929.AAB23461@LOCALNAME> > > Jesus Ernesto: > > Creo que todos hemos recibido su mensaje. Por mi parte, puedo decirle que > no lo he entendido. Me parece que su programa para enviar sus mensajes > tiene also que hace que cada tres o cuatro palabras de su mensaje tiene > algunos caracteres extranos y hacen su mensaje muy confuso. No se como > recibira esta nota de respuesta que le estoy enviando (quiere decir que al > responderle yo, y enviarle de regreso su mensaje, usted podra ver los > caracteres que le menciono antes). > > He entendido apenar que usted ha estado muy ocupado con sus actividades. > Espero que todos esten bien. > > Un saludo para todos por alla. > > Y mucha suerte para usted con su sistema de enviar mensajes. Ciao. > Mi querida Alicia, ahora escribire sin acentos, tan queridos del spanish(no puedo escribir en mi idioma natal), ya que tu sistema no esta configurado en espa...nish, no entiendes o por lo menos tu sistema de correo no lo hace, lo que el mio configura en caracteres del espa...nish, bueno no importa, lo que les queria decir, es que si he estado ausente por algun tiempo, porque he tenido un lio de virus en el Internet y ha llegado a mi maquina, por lo que tuve que salir del medio por algun tiempo, les pido vean la pagina de la logia unidad, y me den sus comentarios, tambien que prosigamos con lo que nos quedamos del moderador y manden sus propuestas y puntos de vista, creo que al final puede quedar cualquiera de nosotros y proponer un plan de trabajo, bueno saludos a todos y ya no escribire con asentos... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 96 11:04 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Reality Check-Summary of the World Message-ID: Just received this in my mail. Perhaps some of you have already seen this. . .for those of you who haven't. . .'tis interesting. >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:39:47 -0800 (PST) >From: Barnum Watkins >Subject: Reality Check-Summary of the World > >A Summary of the World > >If we could, at this time, shrink the Earth's population to a village of >precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, it >would look like this: > >There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western >Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans. > >70 would be non-white, 30 white > >70 would be non-Christian, 30 Christian > >50% of the entire world wealth would be in the hands of only 6 >people. All 6 would be citizens of the US. > >70 would be unable to read > >50 would suffer from malnutrition > >80 would live in sub-standard housing > >Only 1 would have a college education > >When one considers our world from such an incredibly compressed perspective, >the need for both tolerance and understanding becomes glaringly apparent. > Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:14:07 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Art House wrote: > question to the discussion list?> > > -- Are you serious? > > I thought the whole point of this list was to be able to freely discuss > these things? > > It's a valid question considering the facts. There were a lot of dubious > activities that went into the foundation of the TS. I was just wondering > (because I am struggling with it myself) how some of the members in > longstanding might have reconciled the dirty laundry? Questions about the facts themselves are valid indeed, and there was a lot on this list on that matter. Now, you were asking something else: what are people's attitudes toward those facts (supposing they were established facts which in itself is doubtful--compare e.g. what Alex Dolgorukii and Liesel Deutsch or Bee Brown interpreted the 'facts') and what they were going to do about it. This is quite a different kind of question. I am wondering what you are going to do with answers if you ever receive ones (it looks like all related messages so far were about your question and my reply rather than direct answers to your question, which in itself is remarkable). > I mean, really, > what if I just said that Master Morya was making me ask this question, > and that If pressed, would produce a letter to prove it,... would that > make it any easier to talk about this?) This is a really good point. Consider looking inside yourself and asking, what makes you ask this question (--again not a direct answer...). > There was some wool-pulling that went on, and now, all these years > later, I just wonder how those in longstanding feel about "the pie in > the sky" vs "the mud on the boots?" A serious question, and not for the > meek. It does indeed reach down to the very footings. I answered for myself to this question. Did you? Could you please share your opinion and explain in great detail how and why it reaches down to the very footings? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 96 10:48:12 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Precipitation of letters Message-ID: <199611021849.KAA90056@scv1.apple.com> I wonder if someone here could help me understand the Theosophical theory of precipitation of letters. I have been reading the Mahatma letters to Sinnett, and while there is a detailed description of the telepathic process by which the master impresses a message on the mind of the student, there is no description I can find of how a letter comes to flutter out of the air in front of someone, to appear inside a sealed envelope, or otherwise to find itself mysteriously delivered without help of the post office. Thanks for any references to literature where this issue is discussed. Tim Maroney maroney@apple.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:54:51 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: A Serious question Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, John Straughn wrote: > Agreed. However, on both sides. Max has a good point to make, but the point > to which I am referring is not "keep it to yourself". Mark, I agree with Max > that the answers you seek CAN be found in the Universal Self, however, in > order to understand that which comes from the U. Self, you must learn to > understand it. In order to learn, you must ask questions. Max, I hope that > the former is the point you were trying to make. Yes, everything except "you must ask questions." An ancient maxim says, "Know thyself," rather than "ask others." You may ask others for more information, but knowledge of the self is not information, and nobody is going to do self-inquiry for you. Also, I do not know what you mean by U. Self; I would avoid this term as it looks like a tall order. IMO, the Self is similar to an onion, and has several layers, one of them being the World Soul (relatively easy to reach), another the Cosmic Consciousness (an ambiguos notion). All that is well documented in W. James' The Varieties of the Religious Experience and in other books. > This is a discussion list. > And most of what is discussed is centered around helping humanity. I assume > that Mark is a human.:) His question seemed appropriate enough to me to be > posted here. I think perhaps your point was taken more offensively than it > was meant to be. But, then, I as well could be mistaken. > --- > The Triaist Yes, it's a good idea to continue discussion on what we can do to help those in material or spiritual need. Max From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 09:44:11 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961102204411.006d7b58@whanganui.ac.nz> Big snip..... >Who knows? Perhaps the best chance for Theosophy (the organization/movement) >to re-establish itself in the world is to suggest the possibilities that not >only may a person have to "gain" a human soul (Self-awareness which can "hold >It's own ground" at least at the desire-mental level) by a certain >longer-term, "automatic" process, but that after a certain point a person may >also have to take certain volitional steps not to lose the human soul as >well. . . . That is an interesting thought and one that I have thought about often due to my dabbling in 'new age' ideas where this subject comes up for discussion more than in Theosophy. Is there a point in a lifewave's evolution that would be a sort of "harvest time"? There has been a lot of talk about a quantum leap in consciousness being emminent and this may suggest that the 'laggards' in gaining their evolutional level of being, may drop off for a while or may sit in a laya centre until the next manvantara. There seems to be so much death and destruction just now that it may be suggestive of such a thing happening under our noses and as yet we do not recognise it because we do not want to acknowledge that such a thing can happen. In the deeper esoteric writings of some, such a division point is hinted at but it also says that we, as humanity, are not yet out of the emotional centres enough to cope with such an idea. Taken the wrong way, it smacks of inequality which is a big issue in these times. I have learned that there is an un-speakable Reality from which we abstract all sorts of thing and ideas to suit ourselves and so we tend to get upset if serious challenges arise that are radically different from the view we have chosen to abstract from this Reality. It is an ever changing, growing thing at this level and we try to abstract a more concrete reality so that we can have a level of certainty about our life. If life is as we make it, then if we don't bother with the effort then we fail which is part of life that we see all around us. It is nice to think that all failure gets there in the end but life out there in the world shows that is not so. The saying "As above so below, As below so above", may suggest this could be so. Just some thoughts that I find absorbing. Cheers, > >Best Gold Bond wishes and > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. Success is getting what you want. Happiness is liking what you get. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:20:41 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 713 Message-ID: <55zINJA5D5eyEw1a@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961102104833_1813435520@emout02.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >At this point the exclusive and irrevocable linking of ~Theosophy~ with HPB >doctrine cannot be said to be a done-deal. If and when it becomes a >done-deal, we will have become a complete-cult, with HPB-doctrine experts and >proponents running things pretty much without regard for the more general >Truth-seekers. > >Hey, wait a minute. . . . You mean "wait a minute, this is already happening?" ?? There are certainly those who seem to behave like they are members of just such a cult as you describe. :-( Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 16:37:21 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: brainstorming Message-ID: <327BBF11.237A@sprynet.com> liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > Please subscribe me to the NYTS Newsletteer. I'll send you my address to > your personal e-mail address. I'll put you down on the VIP list (don't get TOO swelled a head; that's just what we call the people we send newsletters without them having to join). > The members didn't want to expand the Lodge, so I guess finally they > contracted it out of existence. A couple of people were President after me. > It's a shame, because by now there are a number of study centers in North > Jersey, so there is a demand. And they are always welcome at the NYTS. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 20:43:45 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <67NotiABK7eyEw0K@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <327ADBA5.3F62@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >I mean, really, >what if I just said that Master Morya was making me ask this question, >and that If pressed, would produce a letter to prove it,... would that >make it any easier to talk about this? Cat among pigeons! The Master IQ (signed) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 20:40:46 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HPB and Besant's approval Message-ID: <5L+oRaAOH7eyEwWj@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message , kymsmith@micron.net writes >> Knowing the personalities of HPB and Besant, I totally agree with >>you. If there was even a hint of male superiority, they would not have >>put up with. > >Kym flips after reading it: > >Really?! It may have been more of an issue of prioritizing. One must know >what battle to fight when. HPB and Besant were in the middle of trying to >firmly establish Theosophy in a time period that was less than welcoming. >They had to use words that spoke to the people of that time. We don't know, >not having been privy to private conversations with the two women, whether >they did or did not feel the word was guilty of exclusion. I do know that >they "put up" with a lot of stuff they didn't like (per biographies), but >that doesn't mean they approved. My grandmother had an outside earth closet. Only rainwater, no mains. Gaslight but no electricity. I got to use all three when I was small. She knew about piped water and electric light and water closets, 'cos our family had these. If she'd lived a bit nearer, I know which "ladies room" she would have preferred. She didn't, so she put up with what she had. My mother, her daughter, had moved on, along with me and my father. It's all part (it says here) of "God's plan, which is evolution." (Quote from forgotten TS source, citation not immediately to hand). Evolution means moving on. So what am I saying? That "brotherhood" as used by the TS today is an earth closet, that's what I am saying. My grandfather used to have to empty the s... from his one every day. A good example to us all, he was. He also wandered around lost for a time in no-man's-land during the first world war in France. He was in the medical corps, and treated any wounded he found - English, French, German - without distinction of race or creed. Think I read something like that somewhere .... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:40:47 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HPB and Besant's approval Message-ID: In message <199611021340.IAA17833@cliff.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >I'm sure HPB and Besant may have approved of indoor plumbing as well, >but hopefully most of us have moved on to better bathroom facilities. > >-Ann E. Bermingham The above was posted by Ann, who is a member of Theosophy International, which *has* moved on ... Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 20:41:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: abortion debate Message-ID: <3rcr5eAEI7eyEw0O@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message , kymsmith@micron.net writes >Should you decide to respond, we may be better off doing it through private >post, since we could be accused, rightly or wrongly, of expanding an issue >outside the realm of Theosophy, or theosophy. Wrongly, IMHO. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:39:33 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes > The production of the letters has been discussed rather >extensively and all the evidence points out to the authenticity of the >letters. Errr ... how about: The production of the letters has been discussed rather extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of HPB in the production of certainly some of them. If you are going to make sweeping generalisations like "all the evidence points to, etc." then you had better produce "all the evidence" and then follow it up with a seriously reasoned case for the authenticity of the letters being a fact. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 17:21:19 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message , > "m.k. ramadoss" writes > > The production of the letters has been discussed rather > >extensively and all the evidence points out to the authenticity of the > >letters. > > Errr ... how about: > > The production of the letters has been discussed rather > extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity > of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of > HPB in the production of certainly some of them. > > If you are going to make sweeping generalisations like "all the evidence > points to, etc." then you had better produce "all the evidence" and then > follow it up with a seriously reasoned case for the authenticity of the > letters being a fact. > > Alan The issue has been fully addressed in: The Mahatmas and Their Letters by Geoffrey A Barborka ISBN 0-8356-7062-7 MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 18:48:22 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <961102184822_344534571@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mark, Well, it's like this. The founders were human beings with human failings. Even the Masters are human and capable of mistakes (and we can get into big fights on that one, but it's in their own letters that they admit it). But the fact of their humanity does not detract from the value of their ideas. Those stand alone, separate from the lapses of the founders. So we don't worry a lot about those things. And the fact that while the founders were Victorians, we aren't and the sort of things that would have been considered absolutely scandalous then are at most sources of amusement now. To put it simply, we don't expect perfection and therefore aren't disappointed when it isn't there. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:38:35 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: Doss - Your reference to the book by Baborka would not be regarded as conclusive evidence by serious scholars or TS history buffs if, as I suspect, it was or still is published by the TS itself, which "edits" the work of TS greats to expunge inconvenient writings of theirs. I guess I am asking *you* for your view of the facts, and *your* assessment of the evidence, not Barborka's. Alan In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >> In message , >> "m.k. ramadoss" writes >> > The production of the letters has been discussed rather >> >extensively and all the evidence points out to the authenticity of the >> >letters. >> >> Errr ... how about: >> >> The production of the letters has been discussed rather >> extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity >> of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of >> HPB in the production of certainly some of them. >> >> If you are going to make sweeping generalisations like "all the evidence >> points to, etc." then you had better produce "all the evidence" and then >> follow it up with a seriously reasoned case for the authenticity of the >> letters being a fact. >> >> Alan > > >The issue has been fully addressed in: > > The Mahatmas and Their Letters by Geoffrey A Barborka > ISBN 0-8356-7062-7 > >MKRamadoss > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 03:48:38 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: <3.0b23.32.19961103034835.00e0bbd4@mail.deltanet.com> Bart: About 14 months ago we had a Fundamentalist Christian on theos-l telling everyone that abortion was murder and we'd all go to hell. The issue was discussed then, and I also made an analogy to assisted suicide. One posting I made at the time is repeated below (from September 20, 1995.) (Note that my comments are in response to another Theosophist on the list at the time, and not to the Fundamentalist.) ---- >It would seem that abortion is murder, whatever may be the age of >the fetus. It may be the karma of the incoming soul (manas) to lose the >vehicle INTO WHICH IT HAS NOT YET INCARNATED, but it is not justifiable to >bring on that karma. It is never right to cause pain or suffering to another >being, least of all out of self-interest. The biggest argument against abortion would be made by those with the Christian notion that a new soul is created for each physical birth, and therefore we are cheating someone out of their chance for a one-and-only existence in the physical world. We know better with Theosophy, there is near-immediate rebirth in the circumstances of an abortion or miscarriage. One comparison that we can make is to suicide. When a person is ready to die, should their death be assisted in any manner? Is it too much to offer them poison or a gun? Could we draw the line at their decision to stop eating food? One member of the Los Angeles T.S. was dying of cancer, and when he knew that his time had came, stopped eating, and quietly passed away that day. Was this wrong? There is a natural end to life. On a inner level, when we have completely readied ourselves, we could almost do like some Tibetans, to sit in meditation, close our eyes, and consciously participate in our physical death. The time has come and our life energies departed and it happened naturally, without physical intervention. Could the same be said of an incoming birth that is proving to be a mistake? The initial birth was attracted by what was in the minds and hearts of the parents, perhaps before the time of the sex act and of the actual physical conception. The incoming person's life energies interacted with the process and "caused" the particular set of genes that the new body will have. A process of coming into birth has been engaged. After the start of the birth process, it may later prove to be a mistake. Perhaps something has changed in one or both of the parents, where the situation is no longer suitable for rearing of the child. The change could be inner, or in outer circumstances. If the change is deeply felt, perhaps we would find a natural miscarriage happening. The mother's body reacts to the changing situation, reponding to the now unsuitable birth circumstances. Certainly, in this day and age, there is no such "natural miscarriage," but perhaps in a future age when our bodies are more responsive to the changes that happen in us, it may appear. In this day and age, an abortion is like a physician-assisted suicide. We are using medicine to help out with the termination of a life. We have decided that it would be the best thing to do. One big question is: Are we really sure of our decision? We can't change our minds after the fact. And: Is there a general rule wherein we can always say that a particular decision is right, or always is wrong? And with this, I'd say "no," that we need to carefully evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis, sometimes with incredible insight required of us, in order to know what is the right way to proceed. -- Eldon ------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 23:16:08 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: Alan: Geoffrey Baborka has spend a lot of time researching the issue and the book was the result of his work. The conclusions reached therein are satisfactory for me. If anyone has not seen this book, they may want to. If the conclusions reached therein are not satisfactory so the reader/inquirer, then the only other alternative is for himer (him/her) to investigate the available materials and come to one's own conclusions. ..MKRamadoss On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > Doss - > > Your reference to the book by Baborka would not be regarded as > conclusive evidence by serious scholars or TS history buffs if, as I > suspect, it was or still is published by the TS itself, which "edits" > the work of TS greats to expunge inconvenient writings of theirs. > > I guess I am asking *you* for your view of the facts, and *your* > assessment of the evidence, not Barborka's. > > Alan > > In message , > "m.k. ramadoss" writes > >On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > > >> In message , > >> "m.k. ramadoss" writes > >> > The production of the letters has been discussed rather > >> >extensively and all the evidence points out to the authenticity of the > >> >letters. > >> > >> Errr ... how about: > >> > >> The production of the letters has been discussed rather > >> extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity > >> of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of > >> HPB in the production of certainly some of them. > >> > >> If you are going to make sweeping generalisations like "all the evidence > >> points to, etc." then you had better produce "all the evidence" and then > >> follow it up with a seriously reasoned case for the authenticity of the > >> letters being a fact. > >> > >> Alan > > > > > >The issue has been fully addressed in: > > > > The Mahatmas and Their Letters by Geoffrey A Barborka > > ISBN 0-8356-7062-7 > > > >MKRamadoss > > > > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: > http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ > E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 03:02:56 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Bart's Sentence Message-ID: <327C7BD0.1B24@earthlink.net> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > I'm not sure if there's a sentence in there;=20 > can you please rephrase the question? Sorry Bart, I'm admittedly not the best of writers. I was just wondering how people on this list who had heard about the shams of those early days might have dealt with them (if at all). It seems to me that through their deceptive actions the founders cast suspicion and doubt on much of what they were trying to do (and that's the optimistic view). My question doesn't apply as much to the genuine, historical Hindu or Buddhist teachings which they helped to bring to the West. These teachings are more or less verifiable and HPB, et al deserve a lot of credit for their efforts. But in the cases where their pronouncements rely on the authority of the "Brotherhood of Masters" and non-historical texts like the "Stanzas of Dyzan", don't you think that their trickery throws that whole premise into question? And if it does, what does that mean? Were such hoaxes necessary if these things were true and how can you possibly justify or excuse them. If similar things happened in an organization today what would your response be? We can't just excuse them for being "Leos". That's too easy. Aren't they accountable for their actions? Its bad enough that these deceptions were used in establishing the "occult authority" of the society in the first place, but they continued to be used, mainly in the form of "precipitated or psychically received" letters to try to back up both Annie Besant and Leadbeater's claims for power after Mme.Blavatsky's death. If you folks have already discussed these "letters" and concluded that they were all more or less authentic, I'd really like to see the list records for that period. Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" (By Peter Washington. =A91993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the Society, warts and all.=20 I know it's risky to ask questions like this on a list of Theosophy proponents, advocates, members, etc. (I throw myself in there somewhere). But doesn't it bother anyone else that this stuff happened? Sincerely, Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 07:37:01 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Foeticide and HPB Message-ID: <199611031343.IAA24556@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Eldon B. Tucker > About 14 months ago we had a Fundamentalist Christian on theos-l > telling everyone that abortion was murder and we'd all go to hell. > The issue was discussed then, and I also made an analogy to assisted > suicide. > I believe that any Fundamentalist Christian could have come on this list or any similar one and claim that we were all goin' to hell - for an endless list of reasons. After all, we do not subscribe to their belief system and those who do not, they are taught, are surely going down below, while the rewards of following their precepts is the heavenly abode. I thought your post was very thoughtful and logical. Certainly one of the best I've seen on the subject on this list. But for all the Theosophical discussion that touched the philosophical and spiritual implications, there still remains the question in my mind - why does a woman feel compelled to abort her child? It has and is so easy to be "against" abortion without getting one's mind and hands dirty thinking about the circumstances a woman may be in, often with no responsibility from the father or support from her immediate family. Perhaps in a future world where the feminine half of the population is as valued as the male and children are also valued as incarnated souls, rather than someone else's problem, then the need for these conversations about abortion will vanish. Millions of children on this planet are going hungry and many women are agonizing whether they can support another child. Yet many politicians and so-called leaders are more interested in amassing personal wealth and power than caring for their own people. Even in the USA, this is true. The other question I'd like to bring up, as long as I'm here, is that I've been amazed for some time that the American Congress, which is overwhelmingly populated with the male of the species, has so much to say about things like abortion, school funding, health care, etc. Even on this list, there is a majority of males, making discussion of these type of issues rather lop-sided, in my mind. The females and the children need to be heard in greater numbers than they have been in the past. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:33:10 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Bart's Sentence Message-ID: In message <327C7BD0.1B24@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> I'm not sure if there's a sentence in there;=20 >> can you please rephrase the question? > >Sorry Bart, > >I'm admittedly not the best of writers. >I was just wondering how people on this list who had heard about the >shams of those early days might have dealt with them (if at all). It >seems to me that through their deceptive actions the founders cast >suspicion and doubt on much of what they were trying to do (and that's >the optimistic view). Many people deny that there were any shams at all. > >My question doesn't apply as much to the genuine, historical Hindu or >Buddhist teachings which they helped to bring to the West. These >teachings are more or less verifiable and HPB, et al deserve a lot of >credit for their efforts. Indeed they do, which is one reason why we are here doing theos-l. > But in the cases where their pronouncements >rely on the authority of the "Brotherhood of Masters" and non-historical >texts like the "Stanzas of Dyzan", don't you think that their trickery >throws that whole premise into question? And if it does, what does that >mean? Were such hoaxes necessary if these things were true and how can >you possibly justify or excuse them. If similar things happened in an >organization today what would your response be? We can't just excuse >them for being "Leos". That's too easy. Aren't they accountable for >their actions? There aren't, IMO, collective answers to these questions, as this an unmoderated, uncensored forum. If it weren't, it would have very few subscribers. In my experience (not theory) similr things *do* happen in the same organisation today, and some of us protest loudly (but not enough to change it) while the membership gets smaller and the TS is seen gliding smoothly fown the pan. > >Its bad enough that these deceptions were used in establishing the >"occult authority" of the society in the first place, but they continued >to be used, mainly in the form of "precipitated or psychically received" >letters to try to back up both Annie Besant and Leadbeater's claims for >power after Mme.Blavatsky's death. People are stil aguing about this! BTW, I have this teacup ... :-) > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:15:02 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Alan: > >Geoffrey Baborka has spend a lot of time researching the issue and the >book was the result of his work. The conclusions reached therein are >satisfactory for me. > >If anyone has not seen this book, they may want to. If the conclusions >reached therein are not satisfactory so the reader/inquirer, then the >only other alternative is for himer (him/her) to investigate the >available materials and come to one's own conclusions. > >..MKRamadoss You didn't say whether his book is a TS published one. I have, for example, his book, ~H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku~. This is a TPH Adyar publication. I regard your reply as, regretfully, evasive. I asked for your opinion of his conclusions, not his, and although you say they are satisfactory to you, I still don't know what they are, nor why you find them acceptable. Can you not do a short summary for the benefit of myself and others on the list who may not be in a position to read his book, but who would, in any case, like to know what Doss's view is in Doss's words? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 12:51:19 -0800 From: "John E. Mead" Subject: New archive format for Theos-L in testing Message-ID: <327D05C7.6FAB@vnet.net> The Theos-L archives are now using a different file naming method. The new filenames have a format: theos-l.yymmdd.digest-# Each digest is now in a separate file. e.g. to retreive the digest sent out on Nov. 2, 1996 (number 714) you would send a message to listserv@vnet.net containing the line: get theos-l theos-l.961102.digest-714 The older digests are still in the previous format. to retrieve a list of filenames for the on-line Theos-L archives, send the line index theos-l The other lists have not been changed over. I decided to try it for a while on theos-L to see if anyone disliked the new format. peace - john e. m. -- John E. Mead Member of TSA, and Theosophy International (TI). Theos-L list owner; http://users.vnet.net/jem/theos-l.html (Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers; Mathematics is impossible without consciousness.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 96 16:08:51 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: precipitation of letters Message-ID: <199611030009.QAA68096@scv1.apple.com> I originally sent this to Theos-L, but I realize Theos-Roots is more appropriate. I wonder if someone here could help me understand the Theosophical theory of precipitation of letters. I have been reading the Mahatma letters to Sinnett, and while there is a detailed description of the telepathic process by which the master impresses a message on the mind of the student, there is no description I can find of how a letter comes to flutter out of the air in front of someone, to appear inside a sealed envelope, or otherwise to find itself mysteriously delivered without help of the post office. Thanks for any references to literature where this issue is discussed. Tim Maroney maroney@apple.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:26:55 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Get risky! Message-ID: In message <327C7BD0.1B24@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >I know it's risky to ask questions like this on a list of Theosophy >proponents, advocates, members, etc. (I throw myself in there >somewhere). But doesn't it bother anyone else that this stuff happened? Yes. That's why you will find a HISTORY folder/directory on the URL below! It contains some of the historical published material of TS conflicts, and recently I was able to add transcipts of some original letters only recently discovered in England among the Yarker archive. These were letters from Helen Dennis, who quit the E.S. and later the T.S. over what is usually called "The Leadbeater Affair." There is also the text of CWL's "clairvoyant" description of life on Mars which was later expunged by the official TS from vol. II of "The Inner Life" without telling later purchasers that they were getting an "abridged" or "amended" edition. This makes some of us angry, as *they are still doing it.* When I say "some of us" I mean list subscribers. TI members do not have a corporate view on these things (or any such things for that matter) and I would not want anyone to think that I speak for TI, or appear to claim to do so. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 11:38:56 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: New archive format Message-ID: John, I do not like the idea for these reasons: 1. To retrieve archived files, I previously needed to know just one bit of information, date. Now I need to know two matching bits, date and the digest number; as there is no one-to-one correspondence between those (some days there may be two or three digests lumped together, some other days there may be no digests), I need to go first to the index to correctly match dates and digest numbers, i.e. this becomes a double-step procedure which does not sound like a smart idea. If you need to keep digest numbers in the command, is it possible to have the dates deleted? 2. For the same reason, it's now less convenient to retrieve a lot of files. Again, what I needed to do previously, is to type the command line once, then copy it to the next lines, and finally go down the text changing one or two last digits on each line. Now I need to make changes twice--to change both dates (this time in the middle of each line) and digest numbers. 3. Having "theos-l" occuring twice in the format seems to be a redundancy. Also, I wonder if the requests are to be sent to "listserv@vnet.net" (as you suggested in your email) or to "listproc@vnet.net" (as I used to do previously)? Maybe those two addresses are interchangeable? Max P.S. It looks like the format for the digest #710 is different: theos-l.961027 (1 part, 23130 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 708 theos-l.961028 (1 part, 21603 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 709 theos-l.digest-#.961029 (1 part, 22777 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 710 theos-l.961030.digest-711 (1 part, 3655 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 711 theos-l.961031.digest-712 (1 part, 21503 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 712 theos-l.961101.digest-713 (1 part, 23559 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 713 theos-l.961102.digest-714 (1 part, 40582 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 714 theos-l.961103.digest-715 (1 part, 37265 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 715 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:42:34 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: A Serious Question (re Geoffrey Barborka) Message-ID: <3.0b23.32.19961103114232.006a1a18@mail.deltanet.com> Alan: [writing to Doss] >>Geoffrey Baborka has spend a lot of time researching the issue and the >>book was the result of his work. The conclusions reached therein are >>satisfactory for me. >> >>If anyone has not seen this book, they may want to. If the conclusions >>reached therein are not satisfactory so the reader/inquirer, then the >>only other alternative is for himer (him/her) to investigate the >>available materials and come to one's own conclusions. >You didn't say whether his book is a TS published one. I have, for >example, his book, ~H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku~. This is a TPH >Adyar publication. I regard your reply as, regretfully, evasive. I >asked for your opinion of his conclusions, not his, and although you say >they are satisfactory to you, I still don't know what they are, nor why >you find them acceptable. Can you not do a short summary for the >benefit of myself and others on the list who may not be in a position to >read his book, but who would, in any case, like to know what Doss's view >is in Doss's words? Geoffrey Barborka was one of an exceptional group of people that grew up on the Point Loma theosophical property, getting raised from pre-school through a college education under theosophical principles. As a young man, he setup THE SECRET DOCTRINE and many other books on a linotype machine. At a later age, he did an exhaustive study of THE SECRET DOCTRINE and produced an exceptional commentary on it, THE DIVINE PLAN. While it's true that his books were published by Theosophical Publishing House, they are books in the same class as the Collected Writings of HPB, also published by TPH. They represent a careful, exacting study of the history and doctrines of Theosophy, from someone with a life-long training in the subject. I'd put Geoffrey Barborka in the same class of writers as Boris de Zirkoff, L. Gordon Plummer, W. Emmett Small, Elise Benjamin, Judith Tyberg, Helen Todd, and others raised or having studied and worked at Point Loma. You may be too quick to assume that just because something is published by TPH that it's immediately suspect. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 23:45:17 -100 From: Kim Poulsen Subject: RE: Mahatma Letters Message-ID: <01BBC9E1.3C3743E0@ppp117.dk-online.dk> >A few of the Mahatmas Letters to A.P.Sinnett have been placed in the TI >pages below. See files mahatmas.txt and mahatmas zip. >Direct URL: >http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/DIRECTORY/HISTORY/ >A service for Theosophy International Absolutely wonderful, dear Alan! And please give it your most serious thought to do at least the best philosophical ones. I've hoped someone would do this for a very long time. Thank you! In friendship, Kim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:37:49 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Archives of Theosophical Literature Message-ID: Hi We have various Theosophical Classics and other literature archived in many different locations on Internet. Some are at locations of organizations and others are at locations of individuals. >From a planning standpoint, I am wondering what would be the fate of the archives maintained by an individuals say X, if X were to run over by a truck or has hear attack and dies unexpectedly. I think it would be nice if we can come up with some workable approach. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 19:23:35 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <327D3787.6DDA@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > The production of the letters has been discussed rather > extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity > of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of > HPB in the production of certainly some of them. Who is this "most"? Certainly not the modern handwriting experts and style analysts, who, almost unanimously, state that HPB could NOT have been the author, and that that Hodgson report was made up entirely from biased sources. Note that the people who Hodgson used to claim that Blavatsky's handwriting matched that of the Mahatma's NEVER SAW A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT BLAVATSKY POSITIVELY WROTE, only a set of documents that Blavatsky claimed to be forgeries. And they never saw the actual Mahatma letters, only hand-drawn copies prepared by Hodgson. This is not to say that the Mahatmas are who they say they are, simply that Blavatsky was NOT the one who wrote the letters. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 96 16:59:41 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: HPB and Besant's approval Message-ID: <199611040100.RAA19204@scv2.apple.com> > Knowing the personalities of HPB and Besant, I totally agree with >you. If there was even a hint of male superiority, they would not have >put up with it. The Mahatma letters to Sinnett involve quite a bit of misogynist commentary on the general worthlessness and untrustworthiness of women. It appears HPB was willing to put up with that. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 96 18:04 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: Mark wrote: >It seems to me that through their deceptive actions the founders cast >suspicion and doubt on much of what they were trying to do (and that's >the optimistic view). I agree. >Were such hoaxes necessary if these things were true and how can >you possibly justify or excuse them. If similar things happened in an >organization today what would your response be? We can't just excuse >them for being "Leos". That's too easy. Aren't they accountable for >their actions? An excellent soul-searching question, in my opinion. Yes, they are accountable. One of the things that circles my mind quite often is how HPB taught that THE GOAL was to be PURE COMPASSION, yet, she seemed to take delight in ridiculing those who disagreed with her views; she used the word "fool" when referring to others so often, it's embarrassing - and hardly compassionate. I know she knew better and she could have at least kept those patronizing thoughts out of her "official" writings. The Leadbeater thing is even more difficult. I didn't know he was a suspected child molester until subscribing to this list. That has caused me serious inner conflict. I know intellectually anyone can be the "transmitter" of Truth; but emotionally, I wonder why "those who would transmit" would choose such a shaky relay station. Makes me even doubt the wisdom of the "Masters." I wonder about people who belong to a "group" who's prominent "guides" are of suspect clarity. In turn, I wonder about the mental clarity of the members of the group. >Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" >(By Peter Washington. =A91993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's >well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the >Society, warts and all. I have the book, but, at this point, feel it would be an act of raw courage to read it. I don't know how much more I can take. >I know it's risky to ask questions like this on a list of Theosophy >proponents, advocates, members, etc. (I throw myself in there >somewhere). But doesn't it bother anyone else that this stuff happened? It doesn't seem to bother many on this list. It bothers me alot. Maybe I'm just one of those Monads - commonly referred to as a "laggard" - who just hasn't quite figured it out. I don't see how it can't make people extremely uncomfortable that our sources of information make such great targets. Perhaps it's hardest for those like me, who seem unable to consciously transcend the physical to receive "confirmations" from the spiritual realm, to establish a sound foundation. Having said all that, I don't believe that quiet acceptance and a "that's life" philosophy, offered by some on the list, is all that admirable either. Maybe it will be impossible for me to be a theosophist, or belong to a Society, or read the theosophical philosophy without being at the same time both enthralled and embarrassed. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:08:19 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Basic Questions Message-ID: <327D4203.413A@sprynet.com> Art House wrote: > Sorry Bart, That's OK; I will endeavor to answer, now that I understand what you are asking. > I'm admittedly not the best of writers. > I was just wondering how people on this list who had heard about the > shams of those early days might have dealt with them (if at all). It > seems to me that through their deceptive actions the founders cast > suspicion and doubt on much of what they were trying to do (and that's > the optimistic view). When you say the shams of the early days, what shams are you talking about? How were those shams used to justify the works? And how do you know they WERE shams? These are NOT rhetorical questions. My interest in Blavatsky, et al, has nothing to do with their supposed expression of sidhe's, or the lack thereof. > My question doesn't apply as much to the genuine, historical Hindu or > Buddhist teachings which they helped to bring to the West. These > teachings are more or less verifiable and HPB, et al deserve a lot of > credit for their efforts. But in the cases where their pronouncements > rely on the authority of the "Brotherhood of Masters" and non-historical > texts like the "Stanzas of Dyzan", don't you think that their trickery > throws that whole premise into question? It depends. When I hear "Masters", I think in terms of "Master Craftsman" or "Master of Arts", in other words, someone who has mastered a skill or a subject, as opposed to someone who is to be worshipped or obeyed. There is a movement in the Society to stop using the term "Masters" and substitute "Adepts". > Its bad enough that these deceptions were used in establishing the > "occult authority" of the society in the first place, but they continued > to be used, mainly in the form of "precipitated or psychically received" > letters to try to back up both Annie Besant and Leadbeater's claims for > power after Mme.Blavatsky's death. OK, now you're talking second generation, in which case you would probably have to include Bailey, Judge, Tingley, and others. Out of the bunch, I find that I am most comfortable with Besant and Judge. Although I am not terribly fond of either as people, I find that their works speak for themselves (not unlike, for example, Aleister Crowley, or W. A. Mozart). As far as his clairvoyance (or not) goes, let's look at an old Jewish story. There was once a self-proclaimed miracle worker, who went from town to town, performing his "deeds", and axacting a heavy fee for the privilege. He would cure some, not cure others, but expect a fixed fee per town, regardless. A rabbi was sent to see whether or not the miracle worker was genuine. The miracle worker was in the center of town, with the line of sick people in front of him. The next person on line said, "I've been blind since birth! Can you cure me?" "Of course I can cure you", said the miracle worker. "May God enable this man to see!" And the man suddenly started looking around, and said, "It's a miracle! I can see! I can see!" The rabbi then walked up, and held a red cloth in front of the previously blind man. "If you can see", said the rabbi, "Tell me what color this cloth is!" The man looked at the cloth, and said, "It's red!", and the crowd gasped in amazement. "But if you were blind since birth", asked the rabbi, "then how could you possibly know what the color red is? We are not born knowing the color red! It has to be taught!" The crowd questioned the blind man, found that he was a partner of the so-called miracle worker, and drove them both out of town. Now, let's get back to Leadbeater. Let's say that he DID have some clairvoyant abilities. But who was around to teach him the color "red"? We are not born able to see; seeing is a learned skill, starting with bright and dark, then learning to distinguish shadows, then shapes, then colors, then more and more details. But, if Leadbeater was clairvoyant, the only references that he had to interpret his clairvoyant senses were his own knowledge and beliefs. And how could he differentiate between his extra senses and his imagination? Therefore, at best, his revelations have to be interpreted in terms of his prejudices. And, say what you like, he DID spot Krishnamurti among a group of other abandoned children on a beach. > If you folks have already discussed these "letters" and concluded that > they were all more or less authentic, I'd really like to see the list > records for that period. List records? I don't understand (sorry). > Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" > (By Peter Washington. =A91993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's > well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the > Society, warts and all.=20 Unafraid, maybe. Well researched, bullshit. Peter Washington did not write, nor did he intend to write, a scholarly work. He certainly makes no claims of scholarly accuracy; mote that he did not submit it for scholarly review. The very premise of the book is flawed; Spiritualism went from the U.S. to Great Britain, NOT the other way around. The purpose of the book was to poke fun at people who were not around to fight back, plain and simple. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:44:27 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: (re Geoffrey Barborka) Message-ID: <5y+4fCALBSfyEwN$@nellie2.demon.co.uk> My point was (apart that the publications of TPH have been proved to be invariably favorable to the TS establishment, which is natural) that I wanted to know Doss's reasons and opinions, not Barborka's, even if he based his view on the latter's findings. *I am still none the wiser* and I cannot, for a number of reasons, borrow the book, buy the book, or read the book. I do not want to read the book. I want to know what theos-l subscribers' *own considered opinions* are. There are, I know, some serious people who have also made careful and exacting studies of TS history, and that they have come to quite different conclusions. I am unable to read their books either. There are clearly conflicting points of view and differing conclusions. Why, and upon what basis? Clearly from recent postings on theos-l there is at least one person who takes it as given that they at least might have been fraudulent, or misrepresented. Why? In message <3.0b23.32.19961103114232.006a1a18@mail.deltanet.com>, "Eldon B. Tucker" writes >Geoffrey Barborka was one of an exceptional group of people that grew >up on the Point Loma theosophical property, getting raised from pre-school >through a college education under theosophical principles. As a young >man, he setup THE SECRET DOCTRINE and many other books on a linotype >machine. At a later age, he did an exhaustive study of THE SECRET DOCTRINE >and produced an exceptional commentary on it, THE DIVINE PLAN. > >While it's true that his books were published by Theosophical Publishing >House, they are books in the same class as the Collected Writings of HPB, >also published by TPH. They represent a careful, exacting study of the >history and doctrines of Theosophy, from someone with a life-long training >in the subject. I'd put Geoffrey Barborka in the same class of writers as >Boris de Zirkoff, L. Gordon Plummer, W. Emmett Small, Elise Benjamin, >Judith Tyberg, Helen Todd, and others raised or having studied and worked >at Point Loma. > >You may be too quick to assume that just because something is published >by TPH that it's immediately suspect. I don't think so. Their track record leaves something to be desired. I asked earlier this year why Jinarajada's ~First Principles of Theosophy~ (another TPH publication) had not been reprinted, and was told that it would not be, because it "contained a large number of errors." Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 01:13:35 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letters Message-ID: <00jbOBA$MUfyEwMY@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <01BBC9E1.3C3743E0@ppp117.dk-online.dk>, Kim Poulsen writes > Absolutely wonderful, dear Alan! And please give it your most serious >thought to do at least the best philosophical ones. I've hoped someone >would do this for a very long time. Thank you! I am likely to be very busy on other projects this month, but will get round to this again in due course. These files were on my PC from an earlier period. Thanks for your encouragement, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 01:27:57 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HPB and Besant's approval Message-ID: In message <199611040100.RAA19204@scv2.apple.com>, Tim Maroney writes >The Mahatma letters to Sinnett involve quite a bit of misogynist >commentary on the general worthlessness and untrustworthiness of women. >It appears HPB was willing to put up with that. > >Tim Maroney Can you offer some quotes (with citations)? It would be very useful. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 01:26:47 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <327D3787.6DDA@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: >> >> The production of the letters has been discussed rather >> extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity >> of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of >> HPB in the production of certainly some of them. > > Who is this "most"? Who said "most?" Not in your quote above. > Certainly not the modern handwriting experts and >style analysts, who, almost unanimously, state that HPB could NOT have >been the author, and that that Hodgson report was made up entirely from >biased sources. Note that the people who Hodgson used to claim that >Blavatsky's handwriting matched that of the Mahatma's NEVER SAW A SINGLE >DOCUMENT THAT BLAVATSKY POSITIVELY WROTE, only a set of documents that >Blavatsky claimed to be forgeries. And they never saw the actual >Mahatma letters, only hand-drawn copies prepared by Hodgson. > > This is not to say that the Mahatmas are who they say they are, simply >that Blavatsky was NOT the one who wrote the letters. > > Bart Lidofsky I get your point, but I did not write the above, but quoted (I think) Mark, so you would have to ask him for his sources. By the same token, I for one would ask you for yours. I know little of this particular controversy, though I have heard of Hodgson via other historical material. Clearly you are writing as if to someone who is well acquainted with the business, which I am not, except insofar as I know there were/are disputes over the authenticity of the letters. In one sense it is not too important, as such letters would best be considered on the merits of their content, whoever wrote them. In another sense it *is* important if it establishes doubt as to the integrity of people who offered them as some kind of revelatory material. If HPB did this - but the letters are not addressed to her - then her integrity as a source of wisdom comes into question, if they are in whole or in part the product of her own hand. I repeat to you as to others: I do not know all the ins and outs of this debate. A list subscriber has raised them who is clearly of the opinion, received or otherwise, that there was deception involved. So what are the claims and counterclaims? Is there any reason why they cannot be put forward on the list by people who have some experience of the matter, so that we can be seen to give expression to the motto: "There is no religion higher than truth." So you see, I am still no further forward in my search for a reply. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 20:36:26 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Basic Questions Message-ID: On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Art House wrote: > > Sorry Bart, > what you like, he DID spot Krishnamurti among a group of other abandoned > children on a beach. MKR: No only that. When at that time when inquired as how famous Krishnaji is going to be when compared to Annie Beasan, CWL had responded that Krishnaji will be more famous that her. This is a fact. Not only that, many members of Theosophical Society all over, even to this day, have greatly benefitted by Krishnaji and his teachings have made it easier to understand some of the fundamentals of Theosophy as applied to our day to day life. > > Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" > > (By Peter Washington. =A91993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's > > well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the > > Society, warts and all.=20 MKR: Most on the list are fully aware of it. Since Washington wrote the book to make money and many have limited budget of time and money, may not have read them, nor are they likely to. > > Unafraid, maybe. Well researched, bullshit. Peter Washington did not > write, nor did he intend to write, a scholarly work. He certainly makes > no claims of scholarly accuracy; mote that he did not submit it for > scholarly review. The very premise of the book is flawed; Spiritualism > went from the U.S. to Great Britain, NOT the other way around. The > purpose of the book was to poke fun at people who were not around to > fight back, plain and simple. > > Bart Lidofsky > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 23:11:52 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Precipitation Message-ID: <327D6D08.70F9@worldnet.att.net> >I wonder if someone here could help me understand the Theosophical >theory of precipitation of letters. Letters are no different than anything else. Precipitation of any physical object is magic, pure and simple. Of course, if your into chaos magic then the chances are pretty high that many of the words will be mispelled :-) Jerry S. Member, TI PS Personally, although I do believe in the possibility of precipitating letters, I doubt that all of the MLs were actually precipitated. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter to me much one way or the other. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Nov 4 02:40:13 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious question Message-ID: <199611040740.CAA23872@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >---------- >> From: John Straughn >> >> Agreed. However, on both sides. Max has a good point to make, but the >point >> to which I am referring is not "keep it to yourself". Mark, I agree with >Max >> that the answers you seek CAN be found in the Universal Self, however, in > >> order to understand that which comes from the U. Self, you must learn to >> understand it. In order to learn, you must ask questions. > >Is that like Do-It-U-Self? > >-Ann E. Bermingham :-) *laugh* That was very punny. I like it. I'd ask you for permission to use it as a motto, if it didn't sound like a political one. Heh, like "just say no", or "just don't do it". :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Nov 4 02:49:48 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611040749.CAA24263@envirolink.org> >The issue has been fully addressed in: > > The Mahatmas and Their Letters by Geoffrey A Barborka > ISBN 0-8356-7062-7 > >MKRamadoss Or do you have something against G. Barborka too? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Nov 4 02:52:54 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611040752.CAA24451@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >Doss - > >Your reference to the book by Baborka would not be regarded as >conclusive evidence by serious scholars or TS history buffs if, as I >suspect, it was or still is published by the TS itself, which "edits" >the work of TS greats to expunge inconvenient writings of theirs. > >I guess I am asking *you* for your view of the facts, and *your* >assessment of the evidence, not Barborka's. > >Alan In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it is false material. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Nov 4 02:57:24 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611040757.CAA24639@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message , >"m.k. ramadoss" writes >>Alan: >> >>Geoffrey Baborka has spend a lot of time researching the issue and the >>book was the result of his work. The conclusions reached therein are >>satisfactory for me. >> >>If anyone has not seen this book, they may want to. If the conclusions >>reached therein are not satisfactory so the reader/inquirer, then the >>only other alternative is for himer (him/her) to investigate the >>available materials and come to one's own conclusions. >> >>..MKRamadoss > >You didn't say whether his book is a TS published one. I have, for >example, his book, ~H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku~. This is a TPH >Adyar publication. I regard your reply as, regretfully, evasive. I >asked for your opinion of his conclusions, not his, and although you say >they are satisfactory to you, I still don't know what they are, nor why >you find them acceptable. Can you not do a short summary for the >benefit of myself and others on the list who may not be in a position to >read his book, but who would, in any case, like to know what Doss's view >is in Doss's words? > >Alan What kind of position are you in that would prevent you from reading this book, Bain? Go to the library. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 06:15:46 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, John Straughn wrote: > In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it is > false material. > > --- > The Triaist > I like your post. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 14:52:02 +0100 From: Michael Subject: The "Masters" Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961104135202.006a72f0@xs4all.nl> Dear Mark, Be assured that you have at least one supporter in this group to share your serious questions. I have raised these also in the group especially in regard to other critical works such as "Madame Blavatsky, the woman behind the myth" by Marion Meade (ISBN 0-399-12376-8). I have never been under the impression, however, that the authors had much affinity to spirituality and therefore were ill-equipped to assess spiritual philosophy . My impression is that participants in this discussion-group have at least the common sense to admit that we are dealing with a Theosophical myth - that of the Masters. Although Spiritualism is frowned upon in these circles, being of a lower order, Mme Blavatsky's life can only be appreciated if one is conversant with the phenomena of communication and presences. We have no proof that the "Masters" were not fragments of HPB's personality, or if they were entities, who tells us that they did not present themselves according to popular demand as Masters? One has only to follow the primitive commucations of the Brotherhood of Luxor, Egypt, to those of the Himalayas to see a striking development. It is a pity that, as far as I know, never a hand-writing expert analysed the letters in the British Museum library. Most members of this group have taken a step towards truth, but the question is whether we are prepared to take the ultimate one, to return to the original aim of the Theosophical society, and by-pass HPB's or her Masters' interpretation of Eastern philosophy. I hail HPB's Theosophy as a religious belief-system for the masses. Its myth has brought many, including myself, towards a spiritual path. Ultimately we will have to cut ourselves loose from its nineteenth century's approach to the unknown. I agree, though, with its spiritual aims of self-sacrifice, compassion and transcendence, which are universal and to be found in any mystical tradition. I welcome our getting nearer the theosophy of western mystics - a knowledge of God through direct apprehension and inner communication. I have dealt with some of the aspects raised above on my web-pages. Michael http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:26:48 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Basic Questions Message-ID: <199611041353.IAA16981@beasley.cris.com> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > It depends. When I hear "Masters", I think in terms of "Master > Craftsman" or "Master of Arts", in other words, someone who has mastered > a skill or a subject, as opposed to someone who is to be worshipped or > obeyed. There is a movement in the Society to stop using the term > "Masters" and substitute "Adepts". I was never aware that TS used the word "Master" all that much. It seemed to me that that was the favored term by Bailey, while TS preferred Mahtma. > > > If you folks have already discussed these "letters" and concluded that > > they were all more or less authentic, I'd really like to see the list > > records for that period. > > List records? I don't understand (sorry). I have no idea if all the members of this listed have concluded they are are authentic. My opinions of them are derived from a lecture given by Ed Abdill at Olcott's Annual Meeting weekend. In the end, it's not the paper and ink they are written on, but if the words make sense and have any value and meaning to me or anyone else. Does this mailing list have an archive that can be accessed? > > Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" > > (By Peter Washington. =A91993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's > > well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the > > Society, warts and all. > > Unafraid, maybe. Well researched, bullshit. Peter Washington did not > write, nor did he intend to write, a scholarly work. . . . The > purpose of the book was to poke fun at people who were not around to > fight back, plain and simple. Many books are simply written to make money. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:36:04 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611041353.IAA17026@beasley.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > >You didn't say whether his book is a TS published one. I have, for > >example, his book, ~H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku~. > > Can you not do a short summary for the > >benefit of myself and others on the list who may not be in a position to > >read his book, but who would, in any case, like to know what Doss's view > >is in Doss's words? > > > >Alan > > What kind of position are you in that would prevent you from reading this > book, Bain? Go to the library. > --- > The Triaist Huh? BTW, I attended Gnostic vespers and the anniversary celebration of my bishop's consecration yesterday. At one point, he put on his black monsignor outfit with the purple edging and had everyone take a picture with him. He left it on for the rest of the evening. I've never seen him wear it before. It certainly gave me a sense of what the costume can do for you and make you play the part. He was hinting that Alcolyte status was down the road for me. Get out the pink feathers! -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:52:40 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The "Masters" Message-ID: <199611041353.IAA17046@beasley.cris.com> ---------- > From: Michael > Dear Mark, > My impression is that participants in this discussion-group have at least > the common sense to admit that we are dealing with a Theosophical myth - > that of the Masters. I almost fell off my chair when I read this. Since when did "common sense" become a characteristic of this list? We're WAY BEYOND common sense here. > We have no > proof that the "Masters" were not fragments of HPB's personality, or if they > were entities, who tells us that they did not present themselves according > to popular demand as Masters? Personally, I find the whole issue of who the Masters are, if they are and where they are, to be a tedious discussion. It belongs in the category of proving if UFOs exist. If one does pick you up for ride, no one is going to believe you you anyway, because there is no "proof". No alien ashtrays or galactic grocery receipts that one can lift from their saucer. Same with a Master, or whatever you choose to call them. Are they passing out souvenir teacups when you drop by for teatime in the Himalayas? As Carl Sagan says about UFOs, "There is no smoking gun!" > I hail HPB's Theosophy as a religious belief-system for the masses. It's my impression that those masses have found other places to go, considering the membership count at TSA. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:57:34 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The "Masters" Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Michael wrote: > Dear Mark, > has brought many, including myself, towards a spiritual path. Ultimately we > will have to cut ourselves loose from its nineteenth century's approach to > the unknown. > I agree, though, with its spiritual aims of self-sacrifice, compassion and > transcendence, which are universal and to be found in any mystical > tradition. I welcome our getting nearer the theosophy of western mystics - > a knowledge of God through direct apprehension and inner communication. May be it is time to post the well known "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement of Krishnaji. ....MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:12:44 EST From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Value of ideas vs personalities Message-ID: <84EEFEE7BE6@CRLS.Hall.Public.LIB.GA.US> Mark wrote: >How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the >literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and >personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to >authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood >of Masters"? Lewis: In a letter from one of the Masters, they plead that we pay more attention to the ideas they are presenting and less to their poor selves. The world view found in the writings of the founders of the modern theosophical movement must, and I think do, stand on their on merit. It is a philosophy of life that opens the door to a lifetime...some would say lifetimes...of discovery which enlightens and enobles those who invest themselves in this grand adventure "TO KNOW, TO DARE, TO WILL, and to remain silent," which is said to be a motto of its students. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library System Gainesville, Georgia (USA) llucas@crls.hall.public.lib.ga.us 770-532-3311 FAX 770-532-4305 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:47:31 EST From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Know thyself Message-ID: <84F83972C9A@CRLS.Hall.Public.LIB.GA.US> Max wrote: >Yes, everything except "you must ask questions." An ancient maxim >says, "Know thyself," rather than "ask others." Lewis: That's funny!:) You make a good point. Many of us would like to just have someone tell us THE TRUTH, or at least what to do with our lives, and there are many who will accomodate us. HPB made a comment about creating a parental god to whom we are forever petitioning with no response, and that is was no wonder humanity felt so lost and forsaken. Accepting responsibility for ones life is a sign of great spiritual maturity in my mind. I admire those who steadfastly do that, but for many of us still in our spiritual teens a good rebel will do! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library System Gainesville, Georgia (USA) llucas@crls.hall.public.lib.ga.us 770-532-3311 FAX 770-532-4305 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 11:04:01 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Masters, letters, Washington Message-ID: <199611041604.LAA05108@leo.vsla.edu> The last few digests have been so full of questions and comments that are "right up my alley" that I can't resist the temptation to respond, despite a number of bad experiences on theos-l in the past. But those who have been aggressive or contemptuous before are mostly gone now, and I hope that the present company can discuss these matters with less passion and more contemplation. Especially since I'm about to post several disagreements with previous comments. First, to Mark, I applaud you for bringing up this question and am sorry you took my reply as flippant. I didn't mean to *excuse* the Founders on the basis of being Leos; the point was that unrealistic expectations lead to either disappointment or self-delusion. I once deluded myself about the Founders, and then I was disappointed in them-- but have ended up in a state of equanimity, able to weigh the good and the bad and conclude that the former outweighs the latter. All your points are still well taken; Theosophy can never again be my religion (I never called that spade a spade but was a true believer nonetheless) in the way it used to be. There is to a certain extent a justification for the misrepresentations of the Masters made by HPB, which you will find in my books. She was obliged to conceal their true names and much else about them in order to protect their privacy. And having revealed more about them than was prudent, she then had to cover up by generating contradictory stories to confuse the issue. For example, M. and K.H. are portrayed as a Hindu and a Sikh respectively, residents of Northwest India, in early sources. But later they become Buddhists who live a thousand miles to the East in Tibet. My conclusion is that the first story was the true one and the second designed to throw people off the scent. To Doss, Triaist and others who uphold the genuineness of the MLs: what does it really mean to say they are genuine? I would place possible meanings of this claim on a scale of credibility ranging from proven, through probable, plausible, and possible, down through improbable, implausible, and impossible. Were these letters the product of some kind of thought transference between HPB and her sources? Possible. Was the language in them her own rather than theirs? Probable, close to proven. Was the handwriting hers? Plausible. Was the handwriting the Masters'? Improbable. Was the doctrinal content of the letters simply out of HPB's own mind, without any adept sources feeding her information? Implausible. And so on. Don't ask me to justify these judgments; others can make their own and I just mean to point out what a "hall of magic mirrors" we are in and how wrong it is to dichotomize between "genuine" and "fraudulent" in such a complex situation. I think HPB entered a yogic state in which she believed herself taking dictation from the Masters; if the handwriting isn't "hers" that doesn't mean she didn't write them-- perhaps she was overshadowed enough to write in someone else's. Or maybe she made them up and got someone else to copy them. If the handwriting is hers, that doesn't mean the contents were. As to Peter Washington's book: Doss, it is untheosophical to make up stories about other people's motivations when you don't really know them, especially when they are demeaning. In the absence of proof of your conjecture, I choose to assume he wrote it because he felt a creative impulse to do so and not for pecuniary gain. Bart, you are dead on in saying that Washington's book is not well-researched. In two pages on the Masters, he makes about 50 factual errors, attributing to HPB dozens of teachings about them that appeared after her death in other people's books. My books were compared unfavorably to his in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, and my reply, with more trashing of me by the reviewer, appears in the current issue. More on that in another post. Michael R., you put me in the vulnerable position of recommending my own books. When you say "We have no proof that the `Masters' were not fragments of HPB's personality" I can only assume that you have not read *The Masters Revealed* and its sequel or else that you dismiss them entirely. Although some Theosophists, most notably John Algeo, have reacted with contempt and anger to my effort to ground HPB's claims in history, most reviewers outside the TS and within it have accepted my fundamental thesis. TMR got raves in the New York Times Book Review and The Skeptic of all places. That claim is that every figure of note in the pantheon of HPB's Masters can be related by historical evidence to real people she can be shown or plausibly hypothesized to have known. And moreover that her knowledge of esoteric and Oriental traditions can be observed to have gradually developed through her life due in part to acquaintance with a series of initiates in various traditions who were widely regarded as experts in them. The correspondences between such acquaintances and the Masters as she depicted them are not simple one-to-one equivalences, which Algeo and others falsely accuse me of claiming to have provided. And they range from very strong to quite weak, with every stage in between represented among the 32 characters nominated as Masters. But they are substantial enough to prove that HPB didn't make the Masters up out of whole cloth, or imagine them, or project them as multiple personalities. She fictionalized real people who had many of the traits attributed to the Masters. When writing the books I hoped that the Theosophists would be happy to find out just how much truth I could find in HPB's stories about her sponsors and teachers. But it turned out that for many if not most, the cup was half empty rather than half full, and they'd rather have no historical prototypes for the Masters at all than accept the fictionalization hypothesis. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 21:26:00 -0800 From: Mika Perala Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <327ECFE8.2F5A@dlc.fi> Kym wrote: << One of the things that circles my mind quite often is how HPB > taught that THE GOAL was to be PURE COMPASSION, yet, she seemed to take > delight in ridiculing those who disagreed with her views; she used the word > "fool" when referring to others so often, it's embarrassing - and hardly > compassionate. I know she knew better and she could have at least kept those > patronizing thoughts out of her "official" writings. Her use of sometimes rude language is one reason why some people do not find her writings very attractive. I am a librarian in our Helsinki headquarters and I occasionally receive that kind of comments. > The Leadbeater thing is even more difficult. I didn't know he was a > suspected child molester until subscribing to this list. That has caused me > serious inner conflict. I know intellectually anyone can be the > "transmitter" of Truth; but emotionally, I wonder why "those who would > transmit" would choose such a shaky relay station. Makes me even doubt the > wisdom of the "Masters." Like someone said earlier in this list, "Masters" are human and they make mistakes. "Leadbeater-thing" has been quite tricky one for me too and so has been all that Krishnamurti-Maitreya business. I was ready to throw my HQ keys out of the window when I read old "Theosophists" about this religious craziness. So, to keep a "sane" picture of the "Adepts" I have decided to believe that they have had nothing to do with TS-organization this century. > I wonder about people who belong to a "group" who's prominent "guides" are > of suspect clarity. In turn, I wonder about the mental clarity of the > members of the group. I sometimes wonder about the mental clarity of myself cause I am still hanging there in TS. 8) > >Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" > >(By Peter Washington. =A91993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's > >well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the > >Society, warts and all. > > I have the book, but, at this point, feel it would be an act of raw courage > to read it. I don't know how much more I can take. It is just another opinion, IMO. > >I know it's risky to ask questions like this on a list of Theosophy > >proponents, advocates, members, etc. (I throw myself in there > >somewhere). But doesn't it bother anyone else that this stuff happened? > > It doesn't seem to bother many on this list. It bothers me alot. Bothers me too. But, I can see one good point here . It forces me to find "the Truth" by myself and not rely too much on some "questionable" sources. > Having said all that, I don't believe that quiet acceptance and a "that's > life" philosophy, offered by some on the list, is all that admirable either. How about "thats life, there is nothing sure outside of me. Or is there???". 8) > Maybe it will be impossible for me to be a theosophist, or belong to a > Society, or read the theosophical philosophy without being at the same time > both enthralled and embarrassed. Maybe. Maybe theosophy is just one step for you to something new and more appropriate for you. > Kym > Mika, TI member Watch out for my not so perfect english!! 8) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:39:26 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <199611040752.CAA24451@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>Doss - >> >>Your reference to the book by Baborka would not be regarded as >>conclusive evidence by serious scholars or TS history buffs if, as I >>suspect, it was or still is published by the TS itself, which "edits" >>the work of TS greats to expunge inconvenient writings of theirs. >> >>I guess I am asking *you* for your view of the facts, and *your* >>assessment of the evidence, not Barborka's. >> >>Alan > >In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it is >false material. > Dear John, You seem to choose to be insulting - why? I have written nothing about this subject, and my knowledge of the controversy is mostyl from hearsay. I joined theos-l to discuss theosophicallly interesting topics with others, many of whom will have studied things I have not. I happen to live above a TS Lodge library, and so I can consult works on its shelves very easily. I also have a medium library of my own. However, if I wanted to know what the books say, I would not be asking the question *here*. I am STILL trying to discover what subscribers to THIS LIST have to say in their own words. Suppose I am a "newbie" to theosophy - I might well *expect* that theosophists of long standing would be able to answer my questions without referring me to a book *and nothing else.* Now if you or someone else outlines the basic position describing (say) both or various sides of a question, followed by your current opinion deriving from your own work, and *then* direct me towards the longer literary works which have led you to these opinions, then whoever does this will have my gratitude and respect. As it is, you choose to insult me. Please apologise. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:41:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, John Straughn wrote: > >> In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it is >> false material. >> >> --- >> The Triaist >> > I like your post. > > MKR You mean that you assent to an insult from one subscriber who appears not to have read what I actually *said* - ? I have asked him for an apology. I also ask you for one. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:16:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Basic Questions Message-ID: In message <327D4203.413A@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >The very premise of the book is flawed; Spiritualism >went from the U.S. to Great Britain, NOT the other way around. Quite true. (Just thought I would confirm this from the UK itself) Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:53:13 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Theosophy Message-ID: In message <1.5.4.32.19961104135202.006a72f0@xs4all.nl>, Michael writes >I agree, though, with its spiritual aims of self-sacrifice, compassion and >transcendence, which are universal and to be found in any mystical >tradition. I welcome our getting nearer the theosophy of western mystics - >a knowledge of God through direct apprehension and inner communication. Thank you Michael. I needed that today after reading some of the posts. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:50:06 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The "Masters" Message-ID: In message <199611041353.IAA17046@beasley.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >Same with a Master, or >whatever >you choose to call them. Are they passing out souvenir teacups when you >drop by for teatime in the Himalayas? Maybe you have to dig them up? (This is intended as a bit of fun - thought I'd best say this before the flames begin). > >As Carl Sagan says about UFOs, "There is no smoking gun!" > >> I hail HPB's Theosophy as a religious belief-system for the masses. > >It's my impression that those masses have found other places to go, >considering the membership count at TSA. Yep. Alan the Apostate --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:23:17 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Basic Questions Message-ID: In message <327D4203.413A@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes > Now, let's get back to Leadbeater. Let's say that he DID have some >clairvoyant abilities. But who was around to teach him the color "red"? >We are not born able to see; seeing is a learned skill, starting with >bright and dark, then learning to distinguish shadows, then shapes, then >colors, then more and more details. But, if Leadbeater was clairvoyant, >the only references that he had to interpret his clairvoyant senses were >his own knowledge and beliefs. And how could he differentiate between >his extra senses and his imagination? Therefore, at best, his >revelations have to be interpreted in terms of his prejudices. IMO, this is the best comment on CWL and his clairvoyance that I have seen on this list. Sadly, we more often see a kind of "black or white" attitude to theosophical history issues, as well as TS literature issues. A lot of time has passed since the TS founders got together in 1875, and it is refreshing to read a balanced and considered post. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:28:37 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The "Masters" Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes > May be it is time to post the well known "Truth is a Pathless >Land" statement of Krishnaji. > > ....MKRamadoss If someone will post it, I will put it on the TI web page for those who come later. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:44:08 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <199611040757.CAA24639@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >What kind of position are you in that would prevent you from reading this >book, Bain? Go to the library. I read this post after your other one, Straughn. You seem to me to be a rather unpleasant person. Given your apparent attitude, I would have to wonder about your committment to "brotherhood." Bain --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 13:25:05 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: The Enemy Within Message-ID: <199611041825.NAA12925@leo.vsla.edu> This time, getting attacked at some length in a national publication is a lot more fun than it was under Theosophical auspices, and gives rise to philosophical speculation about what people choose to attack and why. The current issue of the New York Review of Books contains my letter protesting caricatures of my books as "pious" and "deferential" in a review by Frederick Crews of Peter Washington's *Madame Blavatsky's Baboon*. Crews writes a predicably smart-alecky and inaccurate reply. He is inaccurate in taking my description of various paranormal events in Theosophical literature as an endorsement of claims made as to their genuineness, when in fact I express no opinion on the matter. The smart-alecky part I leave to the imagination. But it certainly does call to mind the way that John Algeo made several factual errors in describing *The Masters Revealed* and also some unwarranted assumptions about my intentions and outlook. It seems that people are inclined to take silence as *dissent*. To a skeptic, if you report an allegation by HPB or Olcott without saying "This can't be true" they assume you believe it. To a true believer Theosophist, if you report it as alleged, without saying "and I believe it," they assume you don't. Alas for faint-hearted and wavering folks like me who leave most such things in the category of "Maybe so, maybe not", this tendency leads to feeling universally reviled. As to the philosophical issue, what really bugged me about the Crews piece was the same as in the case of Algeo's attacks-- "Why me?" With four simultaneous books about HPB coming out in 1993-94, Cranston's *HPB*, my *TMR*, Washington's *MBB* and Godwin's *The Theosophical Enlightenment*-- why did just one manage to draw such fire from both Theosophists and outsiders for opposite reasons? With Washington ridiculing HPB and selling ten times more books than I, why didn't Algeo choose to attack him rather than me in two reviews running to nearly 10,000 words? My book, after all, was basically friendly to HPB and written by one of his own members! With Cranston portraying HPB as a saint who never did anything wrong in her life, and selling ten times more books than I, why didn't Crews choose to attack her as an example of credulity instead of me? Before succumbing to explanations involving past life karma or astrology, I realized that the phenomenon is one that also explains recent events in the Baha'i world: the enemy within. Algeo doesn't want Theosophists' minds to get corrupted by doubts about the Masters, but doesn't worry about Washington's frankly hostile book undermining anyone's faith. If a *Theosophist* comes out with an unorthodox solution to the puzzle, and it gets taken seriously in places like a university press and major review media, this represents a much greater danger to orthodoxy, and requires bringing out the big guns. Crews's particular "church" is the academy, and his fear is that studies in esoteric history are the camel's nose under the tent of academia. If people like HPB are taken seriously in academic publications, who knows what might come next? Degrees in astrology from Ivy League universities, no doubt. So true believer skeptics like Crews jump into the fray to prevent society from returning to the Middle Ages. He doesn't regard a book like Cranston's as a threat to the ideological purity of the academy, but mine and Godwin's and Faivre's must be scornfully compared to Washington's, which takes the only acceptable approach to HPB and her ilk-- ridicule. The Baha'i parallel: why are a handful of academicians who never tried to undermine anything getting front page attacks at the hands of authorities in Haifa and Wilmette, while those same authorities are mum on *real* dissident cults? Because those who can be easily labeled as evil outsiders can be neutralized and have no influence. But "enemies within" who have heretofore had a reputation as loyal Baha'is are a much greater threat, and require the big guns. The enemy within attracts such vituperation not just for sociological reasons but for psychological ones. People only become scared of subversive ideas undermining the faith of their coreligionists when their own faith starts to totter. How else would they be able to distinguish between serious threats and inconsequential ones? So, a twofold hypothesis: 1. The likelihood of an author coming under severe ideological attack is directly proportional to the imagined harm to in-group solidarity or well-being which the author's work is perceived to pose and 2. The imagination of harm to the in-group is directly proportional to the (often unconscious) perceived threat to the certainties of the *individual* doing the imagining. Which leads to a paradox. The more conscious certainty that your own position is right and others wrong, the more likely you are to engage in ideological attacks. BUT the more *unconscious uncertainty* of your own rightness, the more likely the ideological attacks on others. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:37:05 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Bart's Sentence Message-ID: <199611041938.OAA15826@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Art House > We can't just excuse > them for being "Leos". That's too easy. Aren't they accountable for > their actions? > I've tried to avoid asking this for days, but I'm gonna do it anyway. How would we make HPB and CWL or anyone else that is dead accountable? Is TS required to answer for them? BTW, I don't believe that anyone was suggesting that they be excused because they are "Leos". It was just an astrologer's way of explaining their characters. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:22:33 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Value of ideas vs personalities Message-ID: In message <84EEFEE7BE6@CRLS.Hall.Public.LIB.GA.US>, Lewis Lucas writes >Lewis: > >In a letter from one of the Masters, they plead that we pay more attention >to the ideas they are presenting and less to their poor selves. The world >view found in the writings of the founders of the modern theosophical >movement must, and I think do, stand on their on merit. It is a >philosophy of life that opens the door to a lifetime...some would say >lifetimes...of discovery which enlightens and enobles those who >invest themselves in this grand adventure "TO KNOW, TO DARE, TO WILL, >and to remain silent," which is said to be a motto of its students. Well said. It's what is said that matters, not who says it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:14:06 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Precipitation Message-ID: <961104191405_135775166@emout03.mail.aol.com> Well, there is the famous story of Franz Hartmann standing on the chair dropping letters onto WQJ's head so he could get them the VERY same way Mrs. Besant did (though the Bishop was tall enough that he didn't have to stand on the chair). Chuck the Heretic Now if someone can figure out a way to teleport money... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:12:14 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Enemy Within Message-ID: In message <199611041825.NAA12925@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >Before succumbing to explanations involving past life karma or astrology, DON'T DO IT! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:47:03 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Masters, letters, Washington Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > As to Peter Washington's book: Doss, it is untheosophical to > make up stories about other people's motivations when you don't > really know them, especially when they are demeaning. In the > absence of proof of your conjecture, I choose to assume he > wrote it because he felt a creative impulse to do so and not > for pecuniary gain. Bart, you are dead on in saying that Glad to see Paul's response. Washington, as the author of the book and holding the copyrights to it, I am yet to see that he has not financially benefitted from the book directly or indirectly. In view of this, I stand by my assumption that pecuniary gain is to a small or large extent was behind his writing his book. If any one has additional information on this, I would welcome it. If anyone does not agree with my assumption, that is ok with me. They are entitled to their opinion. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:20:32 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Precipitation Message-ID: > > Well, there is the famous story of Franz Hartmann standing on the chair > dropping letters onto WQJ's head so he could get them the VERY same way Mrs. > Besant did (though the Bishop was tall enough that he didn't have to stand on > the chair). > > Chuck the Heretic > > Now if someone can figure out a way to teleport money... > Amen to the $$$ Gertrude the (poor as a) Churchmouse-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Nov 5 06:03:11 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611051103.GAA06928@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199611040752.CAA24451@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>>Doss - >>> >>>Your reference to the book by Baborka would not be regarded as >>>conclusive evidence by serious scholars or TS history buffs if, as I >>>suspect, it was or still is published by the TS itself, which "edits" >>>the work of TS greats to expunge inconvenient writings of theirs. >>> >>>I guess I am asking *you* for your view of the facts, and *your* >>>assessment of the evidence, not Barborka's. >>> >>>Alan >> >>In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it >>is false material. >> >Dear John, > >You seem to choose to be insulting - why? I have written nothing about >this subject, and my knowledge of the controversy is mostyl from >hearsay. I joined theos-l to discuss theosophicallly interesting topics >with others, many of whom will have studied things I have not. I happen >to live above a TS Lodge library, and so I can consult works on its >shelves very easily. I also have a medium library of my own. However, >if I wanted to know what the books say, I would not be asking the >question *here*. > >I am STILL trying to discover what subscribers to THIS LIST have to say >in their own words. Suppose I am a "newbie" to theosophy - I might well >*expect* that theosophists of long standing would be able to answer my >questions without referring me to a book *and nothing else.* Now if you >or someone else outlines the basic position describing (say) both or >various sides of a question, followed by your current opinion deriving >from your own work, and *then* direct me towards the longer literary >works which have led you to these opinions, then whoever does this will >have my gratitude and respect. > >As it is, you choose to insult me. Please apologise. > >Alan I am very sorry that you were insulted by my comment, however, I cannot say that I apologize for making the statement. Keep this in mind. When a student approaches his master and asks him a question, does the master say, "Well, here, let me give you a short summary of it." No. That is because short summaries don't cut it. When you give summaries you leave things out and that leaves room for misinterpretation. I stated the above because every time someone on this list brings up an author or a book in which they think widom is contained, you insult either the author or the publisher ...perhaps you should think about apologizing too? But that is off of the subject. You say we should give you the summary and THEN direct you to the literary works. Why should we waste the time of giving you a summary that could be misconstrued, when there is a high probability that the author of the literature we direct you to will have been a smoker, or ate meat. It's much more intelligent, I think, to tell you what the book is and let you go from there. And if you wish to bring up insults, I have saved quite a few posts in which you have been guilty of the same. However, I once again apologize that you were insulted by what appears to me to be a fact. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Nov 5 06:19:53 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611051119.GAA07949@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199611040757.CAA24639@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>What kind of position are you in that would prevent you from reading this >>book, Bain? Go to the library. > >I read this post after your other one, Straughn. You seem to me to be a >rather unpleasant person. Given your apparent attitude, I would have to >wonder about your committment to "brotherhood." > >Bain My attitude? Hmmm...this is my attitude. I fear for humanity. Every morning afternoon and evening, I watch our brothers and sisters become more and more materialistic and self-centered. I watch them kill each other for highs. For gods. For money. For oil. This is why. It's because many of our brothers and sisters feel that they alone are right, and everyone else is wrong. They don't learn from history. They ignore it. Or they shun it. And because of this, history keeps repeating itself over and over again. There is a reason why people, in general, have this attitude. It is because their life is full of "short summaries". Very few people know a lot about anything in this day and age. A little about a lot, but a lot about little. And most of what they THINK they know is made up in their own minds. Some of it is correct, yes. But most of it is misconception. That is my attitude. Why ask for a short summary full of holes when you can read the whole thing? In fact, after hearing the summary, you may think to yourself, 'WEll, that's just rediculous, there is so much unexplained' and never even pick the book up. I'm sorry if you don't think I love my brothers and sisters enough to be considered a "brother", but, then, I feel better knowing that most of your accusations are assumptions and that you don't know the whole story. The above statement was an honest question followed by a bit of advice. Not a statement given in offense. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 07:02:38 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Precipitation Message-ID: <327F2CDE.2F86@sprynet.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > PS Personally, although I do believe in the possibility > of precipitating letters, I doubt that all of the MLs > were actually precipitated. On the other hand, it doesn't > really matter to me much one way or the other. I believe in the possibility of precipitating letters, myself. Just enter the PRINT command on this one. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:19:07 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611051328.IAA06796@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > You say we should give you the summary and THEN direct you to the literary > works. Why should we waste the time of giving you a summary that could be > misconstrued, when there is a high probability that the author of the > literature we direct you to will have been a smoker, or ate meat. It's much > more intelligent, I think, to tell you what the book is and let you go from > there. I fail to find the meaning behind the possibility that the author may have smoked Salems or ate bacon for breakfast. Non-smokingism and vegetarianism are no longer a strict requirement in joining TS. If they were, I would have not joined. I have sometimes had the same problem that Alan has, in that I would like to hear posters explain things, if possible, in their own words. If we, as Theosophists, can only quote someone else, what do we know on our own? Or are we aping some higher authority figure and checking our brains at the door? For those referring to the Bailey books, I will be happy to type out passages if I am given the title and page numbers. I have collected many volumes and realize that many on the list do not own any. > And if you wish to bring up insults, I have saved quite a few posts in which > you have been guilty of the same. However, I once again apologize that you > were insulted by what appears to me to be a fact. The only thing Alan is guilty of, IMHO, is being brutally honest. Are you saving his posts for a cyberspace court trial? Will that be before or after we try CWL for his misdeeds? Or question HPB on the contents of her smoking mixture? -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 96 9:45:12 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Tedious subjects Message-ID: <199611051445.JAA25351@leo.vsla.edu> Ann, a friend, commented yesterday that she found the whole subject of the Masters' reality tedious. Although in fact I have come to the same point after years of devoted attention, I question the wisdom of saying such things on the list. Saying "I find this discussion tedious" is what psychologically-oriented friends of mine call a "shut-down remark." The implication is, "And boring me is against the rules, so drop it." I can't help thinking of all the discussions I found tedious without saying so: rounds and races, aristocratic bloodlines, Fundamentalist Christian vs. Theosophist (actually I did say so then), CWL's misdeeds, and many more. But then surely many of the discussions I found fascinating-- TS political corruption, ES domination, morality in Theosophy, Alice Bailey, PC language-- others found tedious. Let's not put down one another's interests. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 19:12:37 +0100 From: Michael Subject: the "Masters" Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961105181237.00688cc0@xs4all.nl> Paul wrote: > I can only assume that you have not read *The Masters Revealed* and >its sequel or else that you dismiss them entirely. Your assumption is quite correct. I should love to read them. How can I get them? Michael http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 96 10:17:09 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Madame Blavatsky's Baboon Message-ID: <199611051818.KAA41374@scv1.apple.com> >Glad to see Paul's response. Washington, as the author of the book and >holding the copyrights to it, I am yet to see that he has not financially >benefitted from the book directly or indirectly. In view of this, I stand >by my assumption that pecuniary gain is to a small or large extent was >behind his writing his book. If any one has additional information on >this, I would welcome it. If anyone does not agree with my assumption, >that is ok with me. They are entitled to their opinion. I agree with Mr. Johnson that it is ethically questionable to impute base motives without evidence. Almost all books are in fact meant to be paying propositions: the fact that Washington did not flout standards of the field by donating all his proceeds for his work to charity hardly demonstrates that he wrote as a mere huckster. That would be a strange accusation to make of a respected professor and editor whose book, while sarcastic, is not entirely unsympathetic to the spiritual interests of its subjects; it constantly tries to understand their odd behavior by elucidating common trends in alternative spirituality. The book is a serious one and this is obvious from its contents as well as its author's credentials. I am reminded of the outraged reaction to Ellic Howe's "The Magicians of the Golden Dawn" from GD partisans, another unsparing look at occult history from the eyes of a partially sympathetic outsider, similarly charged with flashes of sardonic wit. The fact is that there is no history of the Golden Dawn to compare with Howe's, and no history of Theosophy to compare with Washington's. Meaning no disrespect to the excellent recent books by Johnson and Godwin, they do not take as wide an angle on the Theosophical phenomenon, bringing in as many characters and events -- they are more narrowly drawn historical studies. The panoramic view presented by Washington is one that I have not seen before. I must also agree with Mr. Johnson, though, that Washington's book is flawed by factual errors, which undermines both its usefulness and integrity. In causal reading I noticed quite a few problems, such as a misattribution of anti-Templar accusations to "papal propagandists" (while in fact they originated from French clergy dominated by Philip, and the papacy served as an ineffectual defender), an unskeptical acceptance of the questionable Andreae theory of Rosicrucianism (which requires him to have written the manifesto as a child), the usual misattribution of the "impostor" statement to Hodgson, an mistake as which of the Coulombs was out of the room during the saucer incident, and so on. This makes his work hard to rely on, and while I have found many interesting tidbits for my own research, I feel obliged to check the sources on all of them rather than citing Washington directly. Despite this, I cannot (strangely enough) completely agree with Mr. Johnson that the book is not well researched. Many of these subjects are hard to find good information on, and I am impressed with Washington's treatments of, for instance, Thomas Lake Harris, but due to the liberal sprinkling of minor errors the reader is well advised to take the book's conclusions with a grain of salt. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:54:54 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Value of ideas vs personalities Message-ID: <327F9B7E.7913@earthlink.net> Lewis Lucas wrote: >In a letter from one of the Masters, they plead that we pay more >attention to the ideas they are presenting and less to their poor >selves. Isn't that a little like the Wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!", especially if it were HPB or one of her funky bunch really working the knobs? All this business about "Know Thyself" rather than "ask others" seems conspicuously convenient to aid a coverup, no? If there were suspicious behavior going on, I'd much rather investigate it with a whole slew of reporters, journalists, TV cameras and lawyers. Get it on the front page news and have everyone talking about it out in the open, rather then sit back, swallow the party line and be mum while I contemplate my navel. (Call me immature.) We're not talking about ULTIMATE TRUTH here, we're talking about allegedly very real, very human deceptive shenanigans. By the way, let's not be fooled into thinking that they weren't, to some extent, into it for the money. There were a lot of eager beaver Victorians who turned large parts of their wealth over to a Society that seemed happy to take it. They did charge for all those books, didn't they? They still do. Its economic reality. I bet they loved it when their books showed a profit. (More money for magic cabinetry!) As for holding them accountable for their actions, it's obvious that we can't try the dusty dead. I guess it's just something each of us has to do in our own minds and hearts. It has been interesting to talk about it, though. The legacy of their actions for good and/or ill will continue to color the surviving Society. Mark PS. To KPJ: Sorry you haven't sold more books. Where can I get ten? To Chuck re: Money Teleport. How's this: **For answers to all your UNIVERSAL ESOTERIC QUESTIONS send $.50 to Chuck the Heretic** (We're all so lost, you'll be rich in a week!) ;) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:32:15 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <199611051103.GAA06928@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes > When you give summaries you leave things out and that >leaves room for misinterpretation. I stated the above because every time >someone on this list brings up an author or a book in which they think widom >is contained, you insult either the author or the publisher ...perhaps you >should think about apologizing too? But that is off of the subject. It is not only off the subject, it is a lie. You clearly do not read my posts clearly. I insult no one. AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:33:25 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <199611051103.GAA06928@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >And if you wish to bring up insults, I have saved quite a few posts in which >you have been guilty of the same. However, I once again apologize that you >were insulted by what appears to me to be a fact. Please forward these to me *verbatim* showing where the isult is to be found. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 96 14:22:51 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Madame Blavatsky's Baboon Message-ID: <199611051922.OAA01608@leo.vsla.edu> Thanks for an interesting post, to which I append a few notes of agreement or digression: According to Tim Maroney: > > I agree with Mr. Johnson that it is ethically questionable to impute base > motives without evidence. Almost all books are in fact meant to be paying > propositions: One irate Theosophist accused me of "making a living" off my "attacks" on HPB. Since the modest royalties from the SUNY books *almost* precisely equal the losses on their self-published predecessor, I would have to survive on about -$100 per year since 1990 for this to be true. So Doss's accusation hit a sore spot. Washington has surely done much better, but if he were choosing a topic on the basis of potential income he would *never* have picked Theosophy. > events -- they are more narrowly drawn historical studies. The panoramic > view presented by Washington is one that I have not seen before. > Fair enough; I hasten to say that I regret being dragged by F. Crews into criticizing another author's work, but his method of negative comparison left no choice. Washington's book has many virtues; it is very well written and approaches the subject in a way that can attract the non-specialist reader. He gives more credit to HPB's learning than most previous skeptical books about her do, and is never really mean-spirited despite all the ridicule. snip > so on. This makes his work hard to rely on, and while I have found many > interesting tidbits for my own research, I feel obliged to check the > sources on all of them rather than citing Washington directly. > > Despite this, I cannot (strangely enough) completely agree with Mr. > Johnson that the book is not well researched. Could we agree on an A for breadth and a D for depth? Even setting aside my own priorities it seems awfully sloppy of Washington to base his entire description of the Masters on post-HPB sources and attribute that description erroneously to her. If the book had been submitted prepublication to some critical and knowledgable readers, many of the errors could have been corrected. Some of my harshest critics have been people who felt they should have been consulted and would have improved my depth of coverage and analysis. OTOH getting cooperation from Theosophists was a rocky road from start to finish, including these very people. Nevertheless, learning from past experience, I am making sure that my Cayce ms. will be available to as many experts in the field as care to give it a critical reading. Hopefully Washington is aware of his missteps and will learn from them. Cheers Paul PS-- and thanks for the kind word! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:24:53 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: A Serious Question & Etc. Message-ID: <327FB08A.4955@earthlink.net> Hi (this is not Mark), After sticking my nose into the computer the last few days, I can't help but get into the fray. Excuse my newbiness and I hope I'm not breaking any list rules, but everyone's entitled to chip in their 2 cents, so here's some change. > From: Michael > Dear Mark, > My impression is that participants in this discussion-group have at > least the common sense to admit that we are dealing with a > Theosophical myth - that of the Masters. >From: "Ann E. Bermingham" >I almost fell off my chair when I read this. Since when did "common >sense" become a characteristic of this list? We're WAY BEYOND common >sense here. Ann, Who knows what common sense is? Is there even such a thing? Common sense changes with time and situation. Just because the world is the way it is, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be common sense to have it structured differently. Suppose theosophy, reincarnation and clairvoyance were unquestionably accepted by most of the world? What if Christianity were not as widespread? How would the world be if it was easier for artists, philosophers, and writers to make a steady buck instead of business people? Since I don't believe that common sense is definite, I also don't believe that everything is necessarily as you see it or that everything has to be the way it is. Which brings me to the discussion about the baboon thing. I do agree with some opinions that we should all search within ourselves for the truth. If any teaching rings true within us, then it should be inconsequential how the teaching came about. I don't revere HPB, and I don't know whether her teaching would be purer coming from some guru up on the mountains of India, but some of them are valid to me. On the other hand, if theosophists are really interested in spreading theosophy beyond the small group, they should answer any doubts with heart and groundedness, instead of just giving the general party line. Listen to your questioners with heart and mind, and respond in like. I find that it is unnecessary to dismiss, to insult, or to belittle any questions or opinions. Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199611040757.CAA24639@envirolink.org>, John Straughn >JTarn@envirolink.org> writes >What kind of position are you in that would prevent you from reading >this book, Bain? Go to the library. > >I read this post after your other one, Straughn. You seem to me to be >a rather unpleasant person. Given your apparent attitude, I would have >to wonder about your committment to "brotherhood." > >Bain Straughn, I think you are incorrect to dismiss Alan by telling him to find the answers himself because you feel that a short summation would give misleading answers. How long does an answer have to be in order not to be misleading? A whole book long? A decade long? A whole book and a decade can also be misleading. Does that mean you should dismiss any responsibility from yourself to give any answers at all? Do you think that Alan is relying only on the information you give him as the basis for his life search? A nugget of information can be the start of the wrong path or the right path, but that is up to the person receiving the information. I feel that although we all do not have complete knowledge, we should impart whatever summations we have to those who ask. I am thankful for all teachers who have taught me what they know (however limited it may be), instead of telling me to find out for myself. Why do you think a person is asking? So that s/he can combine it with all other information to try to make sense of it all. Alan and anybody else, Please, please, stop all this generalizing about a person's character based on a few written words on the net. TTT the Leo-Dragon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:34:23 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: hpb and ab Message-ID: <199611052043.PAA11838@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Kym writes >> > But i personally support the original term "brotherhood". Annie >>> >Besant, who herself fighted for equal rights for women, never tried >>> >to replace it by some other term. > Before I became aware of what I was doing, I thought of anyone of any kind of importance as "he". This, I think came from the fact that while I was growing up, the men were the important ones. My mother catered to my father, and my younger brother got to doing a lot of the nice things that didn't come my way. Like he went to camp, we couldn't affford 2 campers; he got trained in Art, whereas I was just a girl and nobody even realized that I had any talent, etc. etc. I was going to get married anyway, and run a household. So very unconsciously when I talked of someone of importance, it was "he". If you'll note AB's writings, she does the same thing. She's not being prejudiced. It's just that this was ingrained. In her day, too, important people were "he". Annie Besant wanted to be important, and identified herself with "he", just aas I did a few generations later. She *did* fight for women's rights. She's the one who got a divorce & would tolerate being subjugated. She's the one who championed the girls in the match factory, and who championed birth control. I'm not denying that, but her every day mindset was as described above. I'm convinced of it. Just have a look at her writings. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:49:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Blavatsky's frauds, the Hoax of the Mahatma Letters and the Myth of the Masters Message-ID: <199611052349.QAA03790@mailhost.azstarnet.com> I have been reading with much interest the postings from Theos-l over the last week. There is much discussion of the early deceptions and hoaxes of Blavatskyy, the fraud of the Mahatma Letters and the myth of the Masters. But in all the postings I have seen, no one has given DETAILED, SPECIFIC INSTANCES to illustrate and document these generalized statements. I will quote a number of instances from these various postings. Some one wrote: >How do you reconcile the value that you find in the contents of the >literature with the admitted facts of the early deceptions, hoaxes and >personal power struggles of the founders that were purported to >authenticate and validate them and their source in the "Brotherhood of >Masters"? What admitted facts are you talking about? What are your sources? Your primary sources? Details are everything. Dr. A.M.Bain or possibly someone else wrote: > > The production of the letters has been discussed rather > extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity > of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of > HPB in the production of certainly some of them. Dr. Bain, could you please let us know your sources for these statements? What evidence are you talking about? Could you give us one or two GOOD EXAMPLES. Art House wrote: > I was just wondering how people on this list who had heard about the > shams of those early days might have dealt with them (if at all). It > seems to me that through their deceptive actions the founders cast > suspicion and doubt on much of what they were trying to do (and that's > the optimistic view). > Its bad enough that these deceptions were used in establishing the > "occult authority" of the society in the first place, but they continued > to be used, mainly in the form of "precipitated or psychically received" > letters to try to back up both Annie Besant and Leadbeater's claims for > power after Mme.Blavatsky's death. Art, can you give us some details of HPB's deceptive actions? What book or source did you read this in? Again, Art, writes: > Has anybody read a book called "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" > (By Peter Washington.1993,1995 Schocken Books Inc., New York). It's > well-researched and seems unafraid to look at the history of the > Society, warts and all. How do you know it was "well-reseached"? What background knowledge do you have in the subjects Washington writes about? He makes so many mistakes on HPB's life that I lost count of them. MKR wrote: >Most on the list are fully aware of it. Since Washington wrote >the book to make money and many have limited budget of time and >money, may not have read them, nor are they likely to. MKR, how do you know Washington's motive for writing the book? Maybe his motive was to tell the truth about HPB and those that followed her. Did Mrs. Besant or Krishnamurti have their books published JUST to make money? Michael wrote; >Dear Mark, >Be assured that you have at least one supporter in this group to share your >serious questions. > I have raised these also in the group especially in regard to other >critical works such as "Madame Blavatsky, the woman behind the myth" by >Marion Meade (ISBN 0-399-12376-8). I have never been under the impression, >however, that the authors had much affinity to spirituality and therefore >were ill-equipped to assess spiritual philosophy . Michael, how well-researched is Marion Meade's book? Have you checked up on her accuracy? For the past 16 years I have used Marion Meade's book in my research work but it is full of many inaccuracies, distortions and assumptions. Every student of HPB's work should read it but needs to do other reading in the primary sources to evaluate what Meade writes. Again, Michael writes: >My impression is that participants in this discussion-group have at least >the common sense to admit that we are dealing with a Theosophical myth - >that of the Masters. Although Spiritualism is frowned upon in these circles, >being of a lower order, Mme Blavatsky's life can only be appreciated if one >is conversant with the phenomena of communication and presences. We have no >proof that the "Masters" were not fragments of HPB's personality, or if they >were entities, who tells us that they did not present themselves according >to popular demand as Masters? One has only to follow the primitive >commucations of the Brotherhood of Luxor, Egypt, to those of the Himalayas >to see a striking development. It is a pity that, as far as I know, never a >hand-writing expert analysed the letters in the British Museum library. Michael, what do you mean by the Theosophical myth of the Masters? I sorta know what K. Paul Johnson means by the word "myth" in talking about the Theosophical Masters? But what do you mean? A concrete, detailed, specific example or two would be most helpful. Again, you write: "We have no proof that the 'Masters' were not fragments of HPB's personality, or if they were entities [???] , who tells us that they did not present themselves according to popular demand as Masters." Have you read even Johnson's books? A reading of his books would show the reader that there was some evidence that HPB's Masters were MORE than fragments of HPB's personality. In several cases, a group of people testified that they saw one of the Masters. In those instances, were the witnesses seeing NOTHING BUT "fragments" of HPB's personality? How familiar are you with the primary sources concerning HPB and her "Masters"? Ann B. writes: >Personally, I find the whole issue of who the Masters are, if they are and >where they are, to be a tedious discussion. It belongs in the category of >proving if UFOs exist. If one does pick you up for ride, no one is going to believe >you anyway, because there is no "proof". No alien ashtrays or galactic >grocery receipts that one can lift from their saucer. Same with a Master, or >whatever you choose to call them. Are they passing out souvenir teacups when you >drop by for teatime in the Himalayas? As Carl Sagan says about UFOs, >"There is no smoking gun!" Ann, I see your point BUT if the "Masters" and the tedious discussion of them belong to the category of proving if UFOs exist, what about ALL of the Theosophical teachings??? Reincarnation, ESP, life after death, karma, other planes of existence, etc. etc. Where's the "proof" of these? These are even less physical or more elusive that "Masters"! Carl Sagan does NOT believe in any of these subjects either! K. Paul Johnson wrote in reply to the first quotation in this posting: > There is to a certain >extent a justification for the misrepresentations of the >Masters made by HPB, which you will find in my books. She was >obliged to conceal their true names and much else about them in >order to protect their privacy. And having revealed more about >them than was prudent, she then had to cover up by generating >contradictory stories to confuse the issue. For example, M. >and K.H. are portrayed as a Hindu and a Sikh respectively, >residents of Northwest India, in early sources. But later they >become Buddhists who live a thousand miles to the East in >Tibet. My conclusion is that the first story was the true one >and the second designed to throw people off the scent. >Michael R., you put me in the vulnerable position of >recommending my own books. When you say "We have no proof that >the `Masters' were not fragments of HPB's personality" I can >only assume that you have not read *The Masters Revealed* and >its sequel or else that you dismiss them entirely. Although >some Theosophists, most notably John Algeo, have reacted with >contempt and anger to my effort to ground HPB's claims in >history, most reviewers outside the TS and within it have >accepted my fundamental thesis. TMR got raves in the New York >Times Book Review and The Skeptic of all places. That claim is that >every figure of note in the pantheon of HPB's Masters can be related >by historical evidence to real people she can be shown or plausibly hypothesized >to have known. And moreover that her knowledge of esoteric and Oriental >traditions can be observed to have gradually developed through her >life due in part to acquaintance with a series of initiates in >various traditions who were widely regarded as experts in them. >The correspondences between such acquaintances and the Masters >as she depicted them are not simple one-to-one equivalences, which >Algeo and others falsely accuse me of claiming to have provided. >And they range from very strong to quite weak, with every stage >in between represented among the 32 characters nominated as >Masters. But they are substantial enough to prove that HPB didn't make >the Masters up out of whole cloth, or imagine them, or project >them as multiple personalities. She fictionalized real people >who had many of the traits attributed to the Masters. Paul, I must agree at least with your initial comment to Michael R. Did fragments of HPB's personality have the ability to appear to groups of witnesses? But Paul's thesis (at least on the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi) is extremely weak and is full of holes. I have just finished a 42 page paper titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: An Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. I deal with the historical issues in detail with specific references to the primary historical documents. Within the next month, copies of this paper will be sent to Johnson, various reviewers of Johnson's books, Frederick Crews and many other interested parties. Copies will be posted on various Usenet groups and a copy will be available on the World Wide Web. Interested readers will then be in a better position to judge the validity or reasonableness of Johnson's thesis on M. and K.H. My reason for challenging various postings from Theos-l is to encourage people to really think through the issues involved. Have Theos-l writers read the primary source documents or have they relied on secondary sources such as Mead's, Johnson's and Washington's books? I am hoping a few individuals addressed above will give me and the rest of the Theos-l readers some detailed, specific examples to illustrate their views and opinions. Food for thought. Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 00:16:21 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Ellic Howe Message-ID: In message <199611051818.KAA41374@scv1.apple.com>, Tim Maroney writes >I am reminded of the outraged reaction to Ellic Howe's "The Magicians of >the Golden Dawn" from GD partisans, another unsparing look at occult >history from the eyes of a partially sympathetic outsider, similarly >charged with flashes of sardonic wit. The fact is that there is no >history of the Golden Dawn to compare with Howe's I did get to meet Ellic Howe at a lecture I gave in London. A little eccentric perhaps, but a cause for outrage - that's hilarious! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:52:21 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: A Brief Vacation Message-ID: <199611060352.WAA04935@cliff.cris.com> Hi folks! I'm going to be taking leave of the list for a while. I have things to do, especially with the holidays coming up and there is an urgency to finish the web page I'm doing by the end of this month. If you care to take a look at it: http://www.cris.com/~Bermingh/ -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:53:28 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: A Serious Question & Etc. Message-ID: <199611060353.WAA04966@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Art House > > From: Michael > Ann, > Who knows what common sense is? Is there even such a thing? . . . My comment was a joke about the participants on this list. Perhaps the humor eluded you. > Listen to > your questioners with heart and mind, and respond in like. I listen and respond as it best suits me. If it is not to your liking, then that is something you are going to have chalk up as another quirky part of the cyber-universe that you cannot control or condescend to. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 20:58:50 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: On the Mahatma Letters and Handwriting experts Message-ID: <199611060358.UAA20932@mailhost.azstarnet.com> On Theos-l, Michael writes: > It is a pity that, as far as I know, never a >hand-writing expert analysed the letters in the British Museum library. Have you ever heard of Dr. Vernon Harrison? He is the handwriting expert who examined the original MSS of the Mahatma Letters and stated in 1986 that in his professional opinion, HPB did not write the Mahatma Letters. This assessement was originally published in the Journal of the S.P.R. [London] and has been repeated in various Theosophical journals and in other publications. Harrison's findings are covered in Sylvia Cranston's biography of HPB. K. Paul Johnson also briefly mentions Harrison on p. 175 of his THE MASTERS REVEALED. I could say more but will save it for a later posting. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 96 21:27 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Elections and Compassion Message-ID: Ann wrote: >Millions of children on this planet are going hungry and >many women are agonizing whether they can support another >child. Yet many politicians and so-called leaders are more >interested in amassing personal wealth and power than >caring for their own people. Even in the USA, this is true. Since I'm writing this on election night in the USA, please excuse any fits of rage, since I am filled with little else this night. Yes, I do believe the politicians are partly to blame, however, especially in the USA, we could vote these malevolent humans out. . .but instead, we either don't turn out to vote (a sign of intellectual and civil laziness) or we re-elect those (congresses) who would continue the war on women, children, the poor, immigrants, and the minorities. Americans whine and whine about how horrible the world is, but give them the chance to restore compassion. . .forget it. And America is considered one of the most "religious" places on earth, of course. >The other question I'd like to bring up, as long as I'm here, >is that I've been amazed for some time that the American >Congress, which is overwhelmingly populated with the >male of the species, has so much to say about things like >abortion, school funding, health care, etc. Even on this >list, there is a majority of males, making discussion of >these type of issues rather lop-sided, in my mind. The >females and the children need to be heard in greater >numbers than they have been in the past. Doesn't look like they want to hear from us for a while still. Of course, with there being such a ruckus over changing a word "brotherhood" in Theosophy, I don't see any other changes we may ask for in the world coming any easier. If some Theosophists have such trouble "getting it". . .well, so it goes. Pure Compassion is sure having a rough go of it. I know I sound like the b-word tonight. Well, I feel like the b-word tonight. . To hell with stepping on the "testicles" with a spiked high heel, I think a combat boot is in order. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:37:09 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Elections and Compassion Message-ID: The spiked heel is more piercing and precise! Gertrude the Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 00:41:36 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Ellic Howe Message-ID: <961106004135_1550140639@emout15.mail.aol.com> Alan, Golden Dawn people get outraged every few weeks. They consider it good for their blood pressure. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 01:38:26 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961106013845.1ebf0ebe@mail.eden.com> At 01:28 PM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message , >"m.k. ramadoss" writes >>On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, John Straughn wrote: >> >>> In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it is >>> false material. >>> >>> --- >>> The Triaist >>> >> I like your post. >> >> MKR >You mean that you assent to an insult from one subscriber who appears >not to have read what I actually *said* - ? > >I have asked him for an apology. I also ask you for one. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: >http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk The last thing that was in my mind when I wrote the msg was to insult you. If it is viewed by you as an insult, then you have my total unconditional full and complete apology. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Nov 6 08:07:11 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611061307.IAA20309@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >> From: John Straughn > >> You say we should give you the summary and THEN direct you to the literary >> works. Why should we waste the time of giving you a summary that could be >> misconstrued, when there is a high probability that the author of the >> literature we direct you to will have been a smoker, or ate meat. It's >>much more intelligent, I think, to tell you what the book is and let you go >from there. > >I fail to find the meaning behind the possibility that the author may >have smoked Salems or ate bacon for breakfast. Non-smokingism >and vegetarianism are no longer a strict requirement in joining TS. >If they were, I would have not joined. I brought this up not because I find fault in those who smoke or eat meat, but because it seems that Alan does. In a rebuttal titled The 4 B's, Alan stated that Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey, and Burnier were "now untheosophical" in their behavior and, therefore, were not genuine. For Blavatsky, he wrote the following: "Heav[y] smoker (now untheosophical) meat-eater (now untheosophical) user of "colorful" language (extremely untheosophical)." I think that meat eating and smoking has nothing to do with love, wisdom, and knowledge. But to Alan, it seems to. So what I was trying to say (in a somewhat sarcastic sort of way) was that I didn't feel that we should waste our time giving a summary and THEN give him a reference book when he uses reasons like that to invalidate authors. I'm trying not to be rude and "insulting" to him. That is never my intention. But ...this is the impression he has given me on this issue. >I have sometimes had the same problem that Alan has, in that I >would like to hear posters explain things, if possible, in their own >words. If we, as Theosophists, can only quote someone else, >what do we know on our own? Or are we aping some higher >authority figure and checking our brains at the door? I understand. I don't believe I have ever given someone on this list a book to explain an issue. However, if I ever came across an issue which is best explained by a book, as in the Mahatma letter issue to which I believe this was referring, the book I would mention. And MKR did just that. >For those referring to the Bailey books, I will be happy to >type out passages if I am given the title and page numbers. >I have collected many volumes and realize that many on >the list do not own any. > >> And if you wish to bring up insults, I have saved quite a few posts in >>which you have been guilty of the same. However, I once again apologize >>that you were insulted by what appears to me to be a fact. >The only thing Alan is guilty of, IMHO, is being brutally honest. Are you >saving his posts for a cyberspace court trial? Will that be before or >after we try CWL for his misdeeds? Or question HPB on the contents >of her smoking mixture? > >-Ann E. Bermingham *laugh* No, Ann, I'm not out to get Alan. I've saved many posts that I found interesting so that I can refer back to them later. It just so happens that on a few of these, he has been guilty of the same as I. I feel that I was being "brutally' honest in my post. Instead, I was made out by him to be an "unpleasant person". --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 07:23:40 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: On the Mahatma Letters and Handwriting experts Message-ID: <32808348.1D84@earthlink.net> Hello, I am a certified Graphoanalyst and have examined the letters in the SD supposedly written by KH and M and I can say with complete certainty that the letters are from two different individuals, and more amazingly than that, the letters have none of the characteristics indicative of *human personal psychology.* The handwriting in the letters is free from the general trait characteristics that are associated with all of us and if I were to make a conclusion from the handwriting I would say that the psychology of the authors was inclusive and transcendent of human psychology. Fascinating indeed. Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Nov 6 08:14:29 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <199611061314.IAA20748@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199611051103.GAA06928@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >> When you give summaries you leave things out and that >>leaves room for misinterpretation. I stated the above because every time >>someone on this list brings up an author or a book in which they think >>widom is contained, you insult either the author or the publisher >>...perhaps you should think about apologizing too? But that is off of the >subject. >It is not only off the subject, it is a lie. You clearly do not read my >posts clearly. I insult no one. >AB In a post titled "Stupid old people" you wrote: RIhle writes [(sarcastically)]: Oh yes, those old people were stupid not to be able to predict that ~brotherhood~ etc. would get narrowed in meaning. They were probably also stupid in the way [they] worded other things as well. So what? A.M.Bain replies [perhaps not so sarcastically?]: "So what?" So if they were as stupid as that, are they worth taking any notice of at all? That's not insulting? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 07:34:27 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Tedious Message-ID: <199611061335.IAA21734@cliff.cris.com> KPJ: >Ann, a friend, commented yesterday that she found the whole >subject of the Masters' reality tedious. Although in fact I >have come to the same point after years of devoted attention, I >question the wisdom of saying such things on the list. Saying >"I find this discussion tedious" is what >psychologically-oriented friends of mine call a "shut-down >remark." The implication is, "And boring me is against the >rules, so drop it." I have never been so hurt by anyone's post than yours. I spent weeks posting privately with you and listening to the problems between you and TS because of your book. Yet, somehow, you have misconstrued my remark to make it sound like I was asking the list to stop discussing the Masters. Since the day I logged on Theos-l, it has never been of topic of interest with me and I have stated that before, but that is strictly a personal opinion. When we were debating gender-neutral language, Doss posted that he thought it time for us to move onto other things and someone chided him for that. The someone who is usually doing that chiding is the person who has an intense interest or personal stake in the subject and doesn't want it dropped. I suppose I struck a nerve when I said that it was tedious to me, while you were probably just wheeling down the runway with it and ready to take off. I assure you that I had no intention of sabotaging your discussion of the Masters or your book. My opinions are strictly my own and only pertain to my interests. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:03:21 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: An Interesting Book Message-ID: Hi I just had a chance to browse an interesting new book by Elizabeth Torok. The Soul is Consciousness - New Theosophical Teaching from a Elder Brother about the realities of the One Life. ISBN: 0-9698927-0-5 Published by: The Soul Publishing Thought some of you may be interested. M K Ramadoss PS: It may be difficult to find this book in book stores. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:14:35 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Tedious Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > KPJ: > >Ann, a friend, commented yesterday that she found the whole > >subject of the Masters' reality tedious. Although in fact I > >have come to the same point after years of devoted attention, I > >question the wisdom of saying such things on the list. Saying > >"I find this discussion tedious" is what > >psychologically-oriented friends of mine call a "shut-down > >remark." The implication is, "And boring me is against the > >rules, so drop it." > > I have never been so hurt by anyone's post than yours. > I spent weeks posting privately with you and listening to > the problems between you and TS because of your book. > > Yet, somehow, you have misconstrued my remark to make > it sound like I was asking the list to stop discussing the Masters. > Since the day I logged on Theos-l, it has never been of topic > of interest with me and I have stated that before, but that is > strictly a personal opinion. When we > were debating gender-neutral language, Doss posted that > he thought it time for us to move onto other things and > someone chided him for that. The someone who is > usually doing that chiding is the person who has an > intense interest or personal stake in the subject and > doesn't want it dropped. I suppose I struck a nerve > when I said that it was tedious to me, while you > were probably just wheeling down > the runway with it and ready to take off. > > I assure you that I had no intention of sabotaging > your discussion of the Masters or your book. > My opinions are strictly my own and only pertain > to my interests. > > -Ann E. Bermingham > Ann: I think the one thing that is uniting all of us is the our common interest in the welfare of the humanity and all of us are in our own way to a smaller or larger extent contributing to this objective to the best of our abilities. From this point of view, at least for me all other matters are secondary. I personally don't think that the real Founders do really care what we think of them so long as we are keep our focus on the welfare of humanity and all other living beings. Of course many of us who have been benefitted by such publications as The Mahatma Letters etc may feel a great sense of gratitude to the Authors and such gratitude is something very individual and personal. As I mentioned some time ago, let us move on and find out what each one of us can do to help the Humanity. ..MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 9:15:02 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: The Enemy Within Message-ID: <199611061415.JAA29469@leo.vsla.edu> According to Mike Furst: > Dear Paul: > > What "'real' dissident cults" are you talking about within the Baha'i World? > > Mike The Jensenites in Montana, Remeyites in New Mexico, any other remaining kinds of Covenant-breakers. Since The American Baha'i is forbidden reading for non-Baha'is, I must admit making an assumption: that if such people were being denounced at length on the front page someone would have mentioned it on one of the Baha'i lists. If that assumption is wrong, I welcome correction. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 9:25:07 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Book info Message-ID: <199611061425.JAA02423@leo.vsla.edu> Thanks, Mark and Michael, for asking. SUNY Press books are distributed by CUP Services, P.O. Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 4851. Toll free number for orders is 1-800-666-2211. Each book is $18.95, but I don't recall the shipping charge. Michael, are you in the US? If not, SUNY has European distributors but I'd have to look them up. And Mark-- TMR sales were very good for a university press book, with four printings. That places it in the top quarter of university press titles, according to my sources. Of course I don't know what the sales were for Cranston and Washington, and am guessing. But as a rule a successful commercial publication should do about 10 times as well as a successful university press title. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 07:59:11 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Blavatsky's frauds, etc. Message-ID: <3280B5C3.7FB6@earthlink.net> Daniel, What do you consider to be the primary source documents? Who authored them? How do they, in your opinion, establish the proof of the Masters and non-historical texts like "The Stanzas of Dyzan"? How do they vindicate HPB, Besant or Leadbeater from any wrongdoing? If, in your opinion, they do, how do you know they do for certain? Of all the material in Washington's book (admittedly a "secondary" source) that casts Blavatsky, et al, in questionable light (take your pick, esp. from chapters 3 and 4, and in particular the situation with the Board of Trustees and Madame Coulomb over letters, false-faced shrine cabinets and apparition puppets, pgs. 80-84), how do you defend them? Is it your personal opinion that nothing whatsoever questionable went on and that Washington's reportage and point of view (being secondary) are therfore altogether inaccurate? Do you hold keys to historicity in these matters? Are you charged with dispensing the official society imprimatur? Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 08:31 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 718 Message-ID: > Kym writes >>> > But i personally support the original term "brotherhood". Annie >>>> >Besant, who herself fighted for equal rights for women, never tried >>>> >to replace it by some other term. >Liesel NO! NO! NO! I did not write this above citation; I only answered it. I agree it's an erroneous statement. Maybe you weren't implying that I wrote it, but it looks like it. . .and we all know, looks are really the only thing that does matter. Uh huh. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 11:14:52 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: <199611061614.LAA01343@leo.vsla.edu> Kym expresses her feelings about the election. While not wanting to be off-topic for the list, I have some ideas to share on it that are at least quasi-theosophical. It seems to me that the voters have expressed a will that at some level reflects a spiritual maturation process. (My own bias is that of a yellow-dog Democrat, but I think this observation holds across party lines.) Although we didn't get the kind of substantive discussion of issues we wanted, at least we didn't get the kind of personal vituperation that prevailed in the last two national elections. The ads were less nasty, the candidates generally more conciliatory, and the electorate was less responsive to appeals to party loyalty than ever before. (At the congressional level as well this was true.) The concession speech by Dole indicated a willingness to serve in any capacity that would help the country, and I'm inclined to trust the scuttlebutt that says Clinton will invite him (maybe already has) to head a commission to study entitlements. The next four years of divided government can go two ways, basically the Gingrich way or the Clinton way. Congress can attack the President at every opportunity, renew its rightwing agenda, launch scores of investigations, and try to position itself for major Republican gains in 1998. But they risk driving up their own negatives in the process, and should have learned something from the government shutdown. Or they can focus on trying to govern as centrists, to solve problems, to blur party distinctions, to be pragmatists rather than ideologues. Not having my crystal ball at hand, I can't predict the outcome. But what I can predict is that if the polarization and confrontation option is chosen, public opinion will be strong opposed to it and the result will be to punish those perceived as least conciliatory. The thing that as a theosophist I take on faith is that there is an evolutionary dialectic going on here, with a potential for breakthroughs to new levels of political maturity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:28:31 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Elections and Compassion Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Ann wrote: > > >Millions of children on this planet are going hungry and > >many women are agonizing whether they can support another > >child. Yet many politicians and so-called leaders are more > >interested in amassing personal wealth and power than > >caring for their own people. Even in the USA, this is true. > > Since I'm writing this on election night in the USA, please excuse any fits > of rage, since I am filled with little else this night. Yes, I do believe > the politicians are partly to blame, however, especially in the USA, we > could vote these malevolent humans out. . .but instead, we either don't turn > out to vote (a sign of intellectual and civil laziness) or we re-elect those > (congresses) who would continue the war on women, children, the poor, > immigrants, and the minorities. Americans whine and whine about how > horrible the world is, but give them the chance to restore compassion. . > .forget it. And America is considered one of the most "religious" places on > earth, of course. > > >The other question I'd like to bring up, as long as I'm here, > >is that I've been amazed for some time that the American > >Congress, which is overwhelmingly populated with the > >male of the species, has so much to say about things like > >abortion, school funding, health care, etc. Even on this > >list, there is a majority of males, making discussion of > >these type of issues rather lop-sided, in my mind. The > >females and the children need to be heard in greater > >numbers than they have been in the past. > > Doesn't look like they want to hear from us for a while still. Of course, > with there being such a ruckus over changing a word "brotherhood" in > Theosophy, I don't see any other changes we may ask for in the world coming > any easier. If some Theosophists have such trouble "getting it". . .well, > so it goes. > > Pure Compassion is sure having a rough go of it. > > I know I sound like the b-word tonight. Well, I feel like the b-word tonight. . > To hell with stepping on the "testicles" with a spiked high heel, I think a > combat boot is in order. So this your exclusive brand of Brotherhood of humanity leaving out corrupt politicians, arrogant males, and other kinds of harmful insects, right? OK, I got it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 11:24:38 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: <3280BBBF.495B@earthlink.net> Regarding the many problems we see played for us daily, the solution based on the writings of the Mahatmas is on the www at: http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html Some thoughts: > The next four years of divided government can go two ways, > basically the Gingrich way or the Clinton way. The Gingcrich way, as those who wisely ignore the popular media know, is the right way of sustainable solutions. The Clinton way is the way of centralized dictatorship. The proof is found in their respective legislative proposals. The governmental style emphasized by the Mahatmas is one of maximum freedom (the opposite of Clinton's approach). See http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html > Congress can > attack the President at every opportunity Actually this was the strategy employed by the Democratic party against Reagan and Speaker Gingrich. The Republicans have by and large avoided emphasizing Clinton's personal problems (like adultery) and focussed on the fact that Clinton does believe in taking control of people's daily lives and has no consistency is his statements and actions. Fortunately, to our credit as a nation, a majority of the American people would prefer someone else for President. > But they risk driving up their > own negatives in the process, and should have learned something from the > government shutdown. The negatives were driven up by falsehoods in the popular media, over 80% of whose reporters do believe in centralized control over peoples' lives. > Or they can focus on trying to govern as > centrists, to solve problems, to blur party distinctions, to be pragmatists > rather than ideologues. This is what the Republican party has been doing all along -- focusing on the sustainable expression of principles which are favored by the vast majority of people. Please remember that the Republican Congress kept its promises while Clinton's promises change daily. Clinton's primary recent effort was to pretend to be whoever he had to be in order to receive a margin of electoral victory. He had to work this way since his genuine effort to establish dictatorial control over healthcare was defeated. > Not having my crystal ball at hand, I can't > predict the outcome. But what I can predict is that if the polarization > and confrontation option is chosen, public opinion will be > strong opposed to it and the result will be to punish those > perceived as least conciliatory. You are quite correct as to how perceptions work, the test for humanity today and our crossroads is one of whether enough people can see through the deceptions and adjust their perceptions in alignment with truth so as to work for the solutions via economics and freedom as described in the article linked above. - Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:39:21 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: Interesting post Patrick ... Funny how the positions of the "Mahatmas" turn out to be so thoroughly in accord with your own. Just a happy coincidence I'm sure. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 09:47:14 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: On the Mahatma Letters and Handwriting experts Message-ID: <199611061748.JAA27962@scv1.apple.com> >Have you ever heard of Dr. Vernon Harrison? He is the handwriting expert >who examined the original MSS of the Mahatma Letters and stated in 1986 >that in his professional opinion, HPB did not write the Mahatma Letters. I have reviewed Harrison's article. It contains numerous misrepresentations of Hodgson's case, repeats old charges that Hodgson responded to more than a century ago, ignores inconvenient facts about the handwriting analysis, ignores the bulk of Hodgson's case (most of which does not rest on handwriting analysis), does no independent research into anomalies in the record (such as the letter reported by Boris de Zirkoff in "Rebirth of the Occult Tradition" in which a letter from one master was written in the other's writing), and indulges repeatedly in personal attack and snide imprecations in lieu of argument. It really winds up contributing nothing. The apperarance of the Harrison article on the SPR Journal has been misrepresented by the likes of Sylvia Cranston as an official turnabout by the SPR, when in fact, the editors of the journal felt the need to explicitly distance themselves from Harrison's piece in a foreword, insisting strongly that the Journal does not express corporate opinions and that the editors have decided to run a piece critical of Hodgson simply in order that defenders of Theosophy can have their say. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:18:19 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: Dear Patrick, I suggest to stop at this point and not to continue this discussion. This list is not the best forum to discuss political issues. They should be addressed, but not on this list, IMO. We saw numerous conflicting views of Mahatmas, theosophy, the founders, etc. presented on the list; we are witnessing the rise of other divisive perspectives on theosophy on this list. All that resulted in sharp divide and promises more splits and confrontation, which is betrayal of the spirit of theosophy. Right now we are about to create two (or more) new flavors of theosophy--a Democratic theosophy and a Republican theosophy. We may end up arguing that God and Mahatmas are with Democrats or Republicans, as the case may be. Why not concentrate on what is being done and can be really done to further the theosophical objectives? Some of those on the list (including you) are doing WONDERFUL job by disseminating theosophical information on the Web and elsewhere; this is real, this is going to last, rather than futile attempts to convert other list participants. In-depth discussion of theosophical teachings (like the recent discussion of the Isis Unveiled material) would be another useful activity. That may be done without screaming, feeling threatened by others' assertions, etc. Max On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > Regarding the many problems we see played for us daily, the solution > based on the writings of the Mahatmas is on the www at: > http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html > > Some thoughts: > > > The next four years of divided government can go two ways, > > basically the Gingrich way or the Clinton way. > > The Gingcrich way, as those who wisely ignore the popular media > know, is the right way of sustainable solutions. The Clinton way is the > way of centralized dictatorship. The proof is found in their respective > legislative proposals. > The governmental style emphasized by the Mahatmas is one of maximum > freedom (the opposite of Clinton's approach). > See http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 12:31:03 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: <3280CB54.1896@earthlink.net> > Interesting post Patrick ... > Funny how the positions of the "Mahatmas" turn out to be so > thoroughly in accord with your own. Just a happy coincidence I'm sure. Actually I began my search for solutions in their writings and attained happy enlightenment as to the proper role of gov't and the reasons for world events therefrom. :-) Shanti, P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:36:57 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: Patrick, Do you see what kind of response you are receiving? Expect more, and more caustic ones. Max On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, JRC wrote: > Interesting post Patrick ... > Funny how the positions of the "Mahatmas" turn out to be so > thoroughly in accord with your own. Just a happy coincidence I'm sure. > Regards, -JRC > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 12:45:12 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: <3280CEA2.62C6@earthlink.net> > We may end up arguing that God > and Mahatmas are with Democrats or Republicans, as the case may be. Good one! :-) The Mahatmas focus on the promotion of the principles of freedom and honesty as central to the theosophical way. The type of gov't we choose is very much relevant as to our freedom to do our work. I mean no partisanship, the idea here is seek an honest understanding of what is going on. > Why not concentrate on what is being done and can be really done to further > the theosophical objectives? Indeed, one of our main tasks is to bring clarity to the issues today, the reasons and solutions to the many problems are as mentioned in the article linked in the previous post. ( http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html ) > Some of those on the list (including you) > are doing WONDERFUL job by disseminating theosophical information on > the Web and elsewhere; Thank you kindly > this is real, this is going to last, rather than > futile attempts to convert other list participants. Woa!, conversion is not a focus in what I seek, just clarity and truth. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 13:49:52 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Elections and Compassion Message-ID: <328107F4.4662@earthlink.net> Ann, Happy holidays! Tried to visit your web site. However, I can=92t seem t= o get into it. Try again later. In response to your response: TTT said: > Listen to > your questioners with heart and mind, and respond in like. Ann said: >I listen and respond as it best suits me. If >it is not to your liking, then that is something you are going >to have chalk up as another quirky part of the cyber-universe >that you cannot control or condescend to. Ouch!!!! Ma nose just went r-r-rolling down da hill! I=92m sorry if the impression you got was one of censorship. By all means, everyone should be able to verbalize in whichever way they chose. The theosophy list would be tedious if it was all theosophist book writers, all snippy commentators, all questioners, or all beginners. Being green, I read comments by Paul and Tim with great interest, got a good chuckle out of Chuckie, and enjoyed the variety of response. Maybe there is a web site that is only for people who=92ve studied Theosophy their whole life, but that should probably be harder to access than paying a fee (a Myst like entrance game that requires theosophy solutions?). My comment about listening to your questioners was more for people like me, who only started reading about this stuff. Wouldn=92t you or any other theosophists be interested in creating an environment that would welcome anybody midly interested in theosophy, and perhaps help him/her in his/her search? Or would you rather just dismiss him/her as ignorant and send him/her on his/her merry way? Kym and Gertrude, Kym said: >I know I sound like the b-word tonight. Well, I feel like the b-word to= night. . >To hell with stepping on the "testicles" with a spiked high heel, I thin= k a >combat boot is in order. Gertrude said: >The spiked heel is more piercing and precise! I probably missed something, but I was offended by the stepping on testicles comment. Mark told me that it was an innocuous running joke.=20 Until I understand what=92s up, would it be an innocuous running joke if it was reversed using the female body part? History of female oppression does not excuse hostility toward the male sex. Having worked in a very small office, I=92ve witnessed plenty of jokes with underlying hostility toward women, races and religions. I refuse to accept that it is okay to repeat those jokes, general acceptance or not. There are plenty of other ways to get good laughs. =20 I agree that the world is male dominated, and that many atrocities have been committed by men. Ann wrote: >The other question I'd like to bring up, as long as I'm here, >is that I've been amazed for some time that the American=20 >Congress, which is overwhelmingly populated with the >male of the species, has so much to say about things like=20 >abortion, school funding, health care, etc. Even on this >list, there is a majority of males, making discussion of=20 >these type of issues rather lop-sided, in my mind. The >females and the children need to be heard in greater >numbers than they have been in the past. Gertrude wrote: >Since I'm writing this on election night in the USA, please excuse any f= its >of rage, since I am filled with little else this night. Yes, I do belie= ve >the politicians are partly to blame, however, especially in the USA, we >could vote these malevolent humans out. . .but instead, we either don't = turn >out to vote (a sign of intellectual and civil laziness) or we re-elect t= hose >(congresses) who would continue the war on women, children, the poor, >immigrants, and the minorities. Americans whine and whine about how >horrible the world is, but give them the chance to restore compassion. . >.forget it. And America is considered one of the most "religious" place= s on >earth, of course. However, with the population of the U.S. being at least 50% female, you can=92t just focus on those =93testicles.=94 Who=92s to blame? It=92s a= shame that powerful women such as Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton cannot run for President under such environment. Don=92t forget that there have been women in power in various countries who turned out to be like their male counterparts, advocating war and ignoring the women and children. Gertrude wrote: >Doesn't look like they want to hear from us for a while still. Of cours= e, >with there being such a ruckus over changing a word "brotherhood" in >Theosophy, I don't see any other changes we may ask for in the world com= ing >any easier. If some Theosophists have such trouble "getting it". . .wel= l, >so it goes. If the men still don=92t listen, just keep on making noise! For everyone who held their head between their hands woeing about the condition of the world, how about starting with small deeds? Can=92t control the world. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:04:35 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > The Mahatmas focus on the promotion of the principles of freedom > and honesty as central to the theosophical way. The type of gov't we > choose is very much relevant as to our freedom to do our work. I mean > no partisanship, the idea here is seek an honest understanding of what > is going on. Yes, I can see your point. But this issue is divisive, and this discussion group is under no pressure to identify its political platform, so it might be better to drop the discussion--not because it does not deserve any discussion (it does), but simply because IT DOES NOT WORK. (This is in the name of co-measurement, in Agni Yoga parlance). This is just a suggestion, of course. For me, discussions are not an end in itself. If they do not work, other techniques may be tried. IMO, one of the best ways to promote freedom, etc. on the part of those who call themselves theosophists is to send out to the environment currents of light, love, and goodwill; this is a safe and powerful technique of the white magic that is sure to bring good results -- definitely a win-win thing. Unfortunately, we do not seem to be able to make use of it in this group as the currents are difficult to send out via the Internet. Or do we? Another good way is what you are doing now posting your essays on the Web. I can imagine that those who are not in tune with what you had to say just leave your Web pages (with little or no animosity generated), while those who are read the essays and ponder on them. The average Web surfer does not bother to spend her/his emotional energies to respond to what s/he does not like--s/he just skips it. So it seems to be quite positive thing. This kind of "Web discourse" is quite different from what happens in this group (and in many other electronic groups): the unspoken consensus and concealed expectations seem to be totally different... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:10:36 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Mahatma Letters Message-ID: THE MAHATMA LETTERS DEBATE The extracts below are taken from "Koot Hoomi Revealed" by Arthur Lillie of the Royal Asiatic Society, and first published in 1884. The Mahatma Letter mentioned is Number Six in the edition published by Trevor Barker in various editions from 1923 onward, and the quote from it (which has been verified) is on page 24 of the third revised edition of 1930. The letter is stated to have been received by A.P.Sinnett at Allahabad about December 10th, 1880 - after the Kiddle Lecture. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Because the matter has been raised on theos-l, I am posting to to theos-l, though the discussion properly belongs on theos-roots. AB --------------------- Extract from Mr. Kiddle's discourse entitled The Present Outlook of Spiritualism, delivered at Lake Pleasant camp meeting, on Sunday, August 15th, 1880. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Note that Kiddle's lecture was *before* KH's letter] "My friends, ideas rule the world, and as men's minds receive new ideas, laying aside the old and effete, the world advances. Society rests upon them; mighty revolutions spring from them; institutions crumble before their onward march. It is just as im possible to resist their influx, when the tide comes, as to stay the progress of the tide. ... And the agency called Spiritualism is bringing a new set of ideas into the world - ideas on the most momentous subjects, touching man's true position in the universe; his origin and destiny; the relation of the mortal to the immortal; of the temporary to the Eternal; of the finite to the Infinite; of man's deathless soul to the material universe in which it now dwells - ideas larger, more general, more comprehensive, recognising more fully the universal reign of law as the expression of Divine Will, unchanging and unchangeable, in regard to which there is only an Eternal Now, while to mortals time is past or future, as related to their finite existence on this material plane," &c., &c. _________________________________________ Extract from Koot Hoomi's letter to Mr. Sinnett, in The Occult World, 3rd edition, p. 102. The first edition was published in June, 1881. ^^^^^^^^^^ "Ideas rule the world; and as men's minds receive new ideas, laying aside the old and effete, the world will advance, mighty revolutions will spring from them, and even powers will crumble before their onward march, crushed by their irresistible force. It will be just as impossible to resist their influence when the time comes as to stay the progress of the tide. But all this will come gradually on, and before it comes we have a duty set before us; that of sweeping away as much as possible the dross left to us by our pious forefathers. New ideas have to be planted on clean places, for these ideas touch upon the most momentous subjects. It is not physical phenomena, but these universal ideas that we study; as to comprehend the former we have first to understand the latter. They touch man's true position in the universe in relation to his previous and future births, his origin and future destiny; the relation of the mortal to the immortal, of the temporary to the Eternal, of the finite to the Infinite; ideas larger, grander, more comprehensive, recognising the eternal reign of immutable law, unchanging and unchangeable, in regard to which there is only an Eternal Now: while to uninitiated mortals time is past or future, as related to their finite existence on this material speck of dirt," &c., &c. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:14:45 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Mahatma Letters (Gilbert) Message-ID: PREFACE to Reprint of "Koot Hoomi Unveiled" by R.A.Gilbert All of the central tenets of Theosophy - as the term is understood within the Theosophical Society - are contained in The Mahatma Letters, which were transmitted to A.P. Sinnett and others between 1880 and 1884. Extracts from the letters were published by Sinnett in The Occult World (1881) and Esoteric Buddhism (1883) but they were not published in their entirety until 1923 when A.T. Barker issued them as The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. The letters provide an effective source-book for the doctrines elaborated in H.P. Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine (1888) and espoused by the great majority of latter-day theosophists, but the origin of the letters remains problematic. Sinnett believed that they were miraculously 'precipitated', travelling thousands of miles to reach him in India or England from the Mahatmas' home in Tibet. Others remained sceptical, arguing that the letters were not only delivered by Mme. Blavatsky but also composed and written by her. The battle-lines are still drawn up, with believers and sceptics hurling a steady stream of invective at each other and rarely supporting their positions by rational argument. Perhaps the most sober defence has been offered by Geoffrey Barborka in The Mahatmas and their Letters (1973), while the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?, by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has yet to be rationally rebutted. Arguing over the source of the letters may seem pointless if one considers that the real issue is the spiritual merit, or otherwise, of their content. But spiritual truths are not best served if they are disseminated by fraud, and it is as well to establish the truth about the origin of the letters (insofar as it can ever be fully known) if we are to judge the contents on their value as spiritual philosophy. For this reason, if for no other, Arthur Lillie's forgotten pamphlet of 1883 deserves to be read and studied with care. At the time of its publication Koot Hoomi Unveiled was attacked with vitriolic abuse but with precious little reason, and Lillie's strictures have remained largely unanswered. With hindsight it is possible to point out the superficial nature of some of his comments on Tibetan Buddhism, but his critics necessarily used the same texts and commentaries as were available to him and their counter arguments thus carry very little weight. Such ripostes as they did make were fully answered in Lillie's long letter justifying his case that appeared in the journal Light in August, 1884, and which is reprinted here. [Text available - AB] It should also be borne in mind that Arthur Lillie was neither an hysterical defender of the claims of Spiritualism against those of Theosophy, nor an unthinking, fundamentalist Christian opponent of 'Esoteric Buddhism'. He was a sound scholar with a profound knowledge of, and sympathy for, the Buddhist religion. From 1883 to 1912 he produced a series of scholarly works on the life of the Buddha and on Buddhist and Vedantist influences upon both early Christianity and classical Greece. He was a Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, in whose library his books are still to be found. On a more popular level he wrote brief biographies of mystics and other esoteric writers, ranging from Boehme and Swedenborg to Stainton Moses and Madame Blavatsky. While he clearly rejected the ideas of H.P.B. he remained scrupulously objective when he wrote his studies of her, and his views on the Mahatma letters deserve careful consideration - whether or not we agree with them. Indeed, it is only by emulating Lillie's meticulous attention to detail that we shall be able to arrive at a true understanding of the origin and nature of the Mahatma letters, and only then can we truly be said to have stood firm by the motto of the Theosophical Society: 'There is no Religion higher than Truth.' R.A. GILBERT Bristol, September 1995 --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:54:58 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <2.2.16.19961106013845.1ebf0ebe@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes > The last thing that was in my mind when I wrote the msg was to insult >you. If it is viewed by you as an insult, then you have my total >unconditional full and complete apology. Thank you very much. You are a most courteous respondent. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 17:29:57 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: <32811162.6D4B@earthlink.net> > (This is in > the name of co-measurement, in Agni Yoga parlance). > ... > For me, discussions are not an end in itself. If they do not work, other > techniques may be tried. IMO, one of the best ways to promote freedom, > etc. on the part of those who call themselves theosophists is to send > out to the environment currents of light, love, and goodwill; Amen, the thread of light & love flows with the thread of truth and honesty. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:08:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Blavatsky's frauds, the Hoax of the Mahatma Letters and the Myth of the Masters Message-ID: In message <199611052349.QAA03790@mailhost.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >Dr. A.M.Bain or possibly someone else wrote: >> >> The production of the letters has been discussed rather >> extensively and much of the evidence points out to the non-authenticity >> of the letters. Many who have studied them suspect the direct hand of >> HPB in the production of certainly some of them. > >Dr. Bain, could you please let us know your sources for these statements? >What evidence are you talking about? Could you give us one or two >GOOD EXAMPLES. You may have missed my saying that this controversy was something that I had heard about - which was why I for one was interested in answers. I had hoped that theosphists on the list would be able to give *me* the sources etc. that you are asking for. I thus find myself in a position which, to me, seems somewhat ludicrous, in that the response I hoped to get from theos-l is *not* forthcoming, but local sources without internet connectivity *are* forthcoming, and I begin to wonder about the real value of this list as a theosophical forum. Still, no matter, I have asked locally about the sources you ask for, and am able to give you some provisional information. Other data is in the process of being xeroxed prior to scanning for upload, so that readers can have chapter and verse. So, provisional sources are: ~Who Wrote The Mahatma Letters~ by H.E. & W.L. Hare, published by Williams & Norgate (London, UK) 1936. Article(s) by William Hare in ~The Occult Review~ around the same period. Extensive correspondence in ~Light~ from 1881 onwards. An article by Subba Row in (probably) Vol III of ~The Theosopist~ circa 1883. "The Kiddle Letter" discussed also in ~The Theosophist~ a,d reproduced by Arthur Lillie in ~Koot Hoomi Unveiled~ (recently reprited in England. The above is from information supplied, but I shall be able to place the quote from the Arthur Lillie booklet on the web and the information concerning the letter itself on theos-l within 24 hours. So far as I can tell from my informant, the majority of the work cited is unfavorable to the authenticity of the letters, but I hope at least to be able to quote parts of it on the list. No doubt others will be able to do the same on the other side of an interesting historical matter. Like yourself, I have no other interest in all of this except to establish, so far as one can this far removed from the events themselves, what the facts may be. We proclaim that "There is no Religion higher than Truth" so why should we not be able to ask questions and get answers on subjects that clearly matter to many people, and which also, it would seem, have a direct bearing on the credibility of theosophical teachings themselves. Personally, I would not be over-perturbed if it were established that HPB wrote them all herself, as I believe some claim is the case. The content of the letters is certainly of some worthwhile value whoever wrote them, and in the end, it is the message that counts, rather than the messenger. Anyhow, enough for now - more to follow. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:05:17 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <961106190516_223348448@emout10.mail.aol.com> MK Ramadoss writes--> The last thing that was in my mind when I wrote the msg was to insult you. If it is viewed by you as an insult, then you have my total unconditional full and complete apology. Richard Ihle writes--> MK Ramadoss, you are my kind of theosophist! Let me quote myself: "The simple act of making an apology instantly creates an ego-formation which doesn't owe one." Personally, whenever I discover that I have inadvertently offended someone, I just try to face the music and regard it as yet another example of my imperfect adepthood--i.e., that a widened perspective upon and better insight into my audience should have been able to predict it, etc. Thus, like you, I try to freely apologize. I think we are in complete agreement that there is no big deal about it. Furthermore, it may seem like I am only apologizing to another person; however, it also gives me the opportunity to apologize to a "better version" of myself--for I know that I probably gave the ~unintentional~ offense because I had temporarily unleashed some desire-mental or mental ego-formation and let it do what it could to show its superiority to all other ego-formations of the same nature. In short, at the least I was guilty of not continuously maintaining the "Once-Removed Vantage." ~Mindful~ offence-giving is a different story, of course, and perhaps it is for discussion at another time (it may relate to JRC's idea of "having a little bit of a [psychogenetic] mission on this list." Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that your theosophical stock went ~way up~ for me when I saw how easy it was for you to apologize. It suggested to me that you may be egoically so well-grounded in something Higher that you are able to effortlessly apologize--rightly or wrongly--for a idea-clad ego-stranger which had formed, passed away, and thus is not regarded as the real You anyway. The only problem I can see in my sharing this psychogenetic perspective is that I may have inadvertently put Alan in a bind: in order to match your apotheosis, I wonder if he now has to quickly say he is no longer the "person" who needed the apology. . . . In any case, MK Ramadoss, you are my kind of theosophist! (But so is Brother Alan, of course.) Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:37:20 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Opportunity of 1996 Message-ID: In message , JRC writes >Interesting post Patrick ... > Funny how the positions of the "Mahatmas" turn out to be so >thoroughly in accord with your own. Just a happy coincidence I'm sure. > Regards, -JRC > Now that's *naughty* of you, JRC - slap your wrist! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:12:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Koot Hoomi Unveiled Message-ID: The complete scanned texts from which the recently posted extract was taken, and which were used for the Bristol UK "Abraxas" reprint of 1995 have been put together in the file Koothoomi.zip and placed in the web pages below. It contains small black squares in a number of places where the original scan showed double quote marks ("). To save wandering round the website, go directly to URL http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/DIRECTORY/HISTORY/ and you will find it there among other material. A service for Theosophy International. AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 20:42:14 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: to Mika Perala, re: a serious question Message-ID: <199611070151.UAA29869@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Mika, I know how you feel about Leadbeater, because all that hate mongering did something to my memory of him too. But let me tell you that I think most of the Adyar membership continues to think highly of CWL. Besides that, I know of 3 of his pupils who insist that he was no such thing. There are records from them in writing, and I've heard one of them say so, and I've seen some of the records. They think of him as an initiate. These 3 were being trained by CWL when they were 10 and 11 years old. They lived in the same house with CWL. The mother of these children was clairvoyant. She could read auras. She would never have entrusted her children , whom she loved, to a man who had something sinister in his aura. I know there's testimony to the contrary. But I heard it from the horse's mouth. I hope you can believe that, or at least give it some weight. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 21:48:11 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: to Kym re: digest 718 Message-ID: <199611070257.VAA06634@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Sorry, Kym, I must've misread. Liesel ........................................................................... ....... >O! NO! NO! I did not write this above citation; I only answered it. I >agree it's an erroneous statement. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:02:47 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: 1996 Message-ID: <199611070311.WAA08265@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Patrick, Seems to me that trying to direct certain matters from DC is not dictatorship. It's just not what the Republicans believe in. This argument is as old as both parties, the Democrats believe in having federal laws & regulations; the Republicans believe in having all government done locally. I suggest that some of it is better done from DC, and some of it is better done locally. I don't know why people keep on harping on that Clinton changes his mind all the time. I find that a very smart way to maneuver. He has an idea, and one way of working it doesn't fly, so he tries another approach, and to some people it comes off as changing his mind. I think it's showing flexibility. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:23:42 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: to: Art House, Re: Elections & Compassion Message-ID: <199611070332.WAA10358@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Art, There are several of us on this list who would like to help newcomers. So ask away. Or if you want rather to ask in private, send it to me directly, or to Alan Bain, or Jerry Schueler, but I haven't seen anything of his for a week or so. If it has to do with theosophical history, ask Dan Caldwell. We also have archives. If you write it on theos-l, someone is sure to answer. I'm not in favor of male bashing either, nor are most members on this list .. not male bashing and not female bashing. I agree with your idea of starting to remedy the world's ills with small deeds. If everyone does a small deed, it'd reverberate across the entire planet. One of the deeds could even be to make yourself peaceful. If everyone in the world were at peace with themselves, there would be no more wars, I think. Best wishes Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:00:47 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Nov 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > In any case, MK Ramadoss, you are my kind of theosophist! (But so is Brother > Alan, of course.) I appreciate your response. It happens to all of us at all the time when what we do or say or write have either a totally unintended or unexpected - many times negative effect on others or cause hurt or pain to others. In the limited understanding that I have due to my exposure to Theosophical Literature, I think it is my responsibility that I should prevent such occurrence or fix it when such things take place. There are enough problems and hurts and pain that we all go through each day and I think it is my responsibility to do something that improves or helps the situation. So I have had no problems in apologizing. Thanks again and you are my kind of "Theosophist". MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:06:48 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: to Mika Perala, re: a serious question Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear Mika, > > I know how you feel about Leadbeater, because all that hate mongering did > something to my memory of him too. But let me tell you that I think most of > the Adyar membership continues to think highly of CWL. Besides that, I know > of 3 of his pupils who insist that he was no such thing. There are records > from them in writing, and I've heard one of them say so, and I've seen some > of the records. They think of him as an initiate. These 3 were being trained > by CWL when they were 10 and 11 years old. They lived in the same house with > CWL. The mother of these children was clairvoyant. She could read auras. She > would never have entrusted her children , whom she loved, to a man who had > something sinister in his aura. I know there's testimony to the contrary. > But I heard it from the horse's mouth. I hope you can believe that, or at > least give it some weight. > > Liesel Liesel: Add my name to those who have been immensely benefitted from the various writings of CWL, even though there may be many who are not. As a matter of historical record, during the time when the accusations against CWL was its height and there was almost a rebellious situation at a National Convention (I believe in Australia), Krishnaji stood up for him and his address to the Convention satisfied the membership at the convention. Knowing the integrity of Krishnaji, this speaks for itself. I think this piece may be of interest to some on this list. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:22:10 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: 1996 Message-ID: Liesel: Politics is defined as the art of compromise. That is why a prophet could not be politician. In all matters that I consider "political" one litmus test I use, is "how does this help ordinary man/woman/child/other living beings/environment?" As as Theosophist, I found this approach very easy and practical. MKRamadoss On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear Patrick, > > Seems to me that trying to direct certain matters from DC is not > dictatorship. It's just not what the Republicans believe in. This argument > is as old as both parties, the Democrats believe in having federal laws & > regulations; the Republicans believe in having all government done locally. > I suggest that some of it is better done from DC, and some of it is better > done locally. > > I don't know why people keep on harping on that Clinton changes his mind all > the time. I find that a very smart way to maneuver. He has an idea, and one > way of working it doesn't fly, so he tries another approach, and to some > people it comes off as changing his mind. I think it's showing flexibility. > > Liesel > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:24:24 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: to: Art House, Re: Elections & Compassion Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > planet. One of the deeds could even be to make yourself peaceful. If > everyone in the world were at peace with themselves, there would be no more > wars, I think. Krishnaji has been saying this all his life. Very few seem to understand or listen. My 2 cents worth. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 01:29:48 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: A Serious Question & Etc. Message-ID: > > ---------- > > From: Art House > > > From: Michael > > Ann, > > Who knows what common sense is? Is there even such a thing? . . . > > My comment was a joke about the participants on this list. > Perhaps the humor eluded you. > > > Listen to > > your questioners with heart and mind, and respond in like. > > I listen and respond as it best suits me. If > it is not to your liking, then that is something you are going > to have chalk up as another quirky part of the cyber-universe > that you cannot control or condescend to. > > -Ann E. Bermingham > > Litsen or don'r listen... at this point I really don't care All of this vitopourous sniping has got to end am faced with life threatening problems I came on here to seek spiritual uplifting... and have indeed been faced with backciting and bickering So much for Theosophy! Gertrude -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 07:40:47 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Enemy Within Message-ID: <3281D8CF.57BE@sprynet.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > As to the philosophical issue, what really bugged me about the > Crews piece was the same as in the case of Algeo's attacks-- > "Why me?" With four simultaneous books about HPB coming out in > 1993-94, Cranston's *HPB*, my *TMR*, Washington's *MBB* and > Godwin's *The Theosophical Enlightenment*-- why did just one > manage to draw such fire from both Theosophists and outsiders for > opposite reasons? Sounds like you achieved a degree of balance. Bart Lidofsky P.S. I, for one, enjoyed the book. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 07:44:17 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: the "Masters" Message-ID: <3281D9A1.12F7@sprynet.com> Michael wrote: > > Paul wrote: > > I can only assume that you have not read *The Masters Revealed* and > >its sequel or else that you dismiss them entirely. > > Your assumption is quite correct. I should love to read them. How can I get > them? Call the Quest Bookshop at (212) 758-5521. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 07:43:19 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: 1996 Message-ID: <3281D960.5668@earthlink.net> > Seems to me that trying to direct certain matters from DC is not > dictatorship. Quite right, however, the issue is as to which matters are to be directed how. Central gov't is only suited for the role of protecting basic rights, all other matters are better directed more locally or regionally. For example, the health care takeover would have been dictatorship and most of the beaurocratic systems today are just such. > It's just not what the Republicans believe in. This argument > is as old as both parties, the Democrats believe in having federal laws & > regulations; the Republicans believe in having all government done locally. The general attitude today is that the role of government, i.e. the use of coercive power in society, is only suited for the protection of basic rights. It is the use of coercive power to manipulate society (since the 1850's in the U.S. -- mostly by regulation and taxation) that has caused or perpetuated the problems we see today. In a free system naturally balanced societal processes evolve which would resolve the problems we see today. See http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html > I suggest that some of it is better done from DC, and some of it is better > done locally. Indeed, and this is what the Repubican congress proposed to do as a step in the right direction. > I don't know why people keep on harping on that Clinton changes his mind all > the time. Proposing a gov't takeover of health care and then saying that "the era of big gov't is over"; promising a tax cut and then raising taxes; vetoing welfare reform then signing it and saying that he will then undo what he just signed, etc. For central gov't authority consistency and honesty are the most important qualities. Peace, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:30:18 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: to Mika Perala, re: a serious question Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Liesel: > >Add my name to those who have been immensely benefitted from the various >writings of CWL, even though there may be many who are not. Add my name as well. Although I have been instrumental in bringing details of the historical conflicts, claims and counter-claims that have occurred over the years, I have done so in the interest of truth, and in part to protest against the "establishment" attitude which appears to want to hide information about such matters - an attitude which can only serve to ensure that these matters are kept alive, and detractors of theosophical ideas get a huge bonus of "condemnatory" material. I have not read "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon" and am not likely to, but from the reports of it which have appeared on the list, it looks as though much of the book's anti-theosophical position was enabled by the attitude of the TS itself. In my youth I was much taken with "First Principles of Theosophy" by Jinarajadasa. Much of this work is a highly competent presentation of CWL's summary of theosophical teaching. Some of its contents can be seen today as of doubtful accuracy (particularly material based upon the "Lives of Alcyone"). I have often urged over the years that this now very scarce work be reprinted, but understand from the Gen. Sec. of the TS in England that Adyar will not reprint it "because it contains a great many inaccuracies". Although I would agree with our Gen. Sec., I would still like to see a reprint of this book. As a genuine and sincerely held presentation of theosophical ideas, it still remains one of the best introductions I have ever read, and I commend its perusal to any serious student who is open-minded enough to reach his or her own conclusions. The TPH in India could easily add a new preface outlining the perceived areas of inaccuracy. I also read some of CWL's works, which I found harder going at the time, but I am bound to acknowledge that without these two authors, together with many others, my interest in theosophical ideas, and later membership of the TS might never have taken place. We all owe them a debt of gratitude, and if they had faults, then we too have our own faults. If this were not the case, theosophical teachings would perhaps be unnecessary! Just for the record. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:57:42 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: 1996 Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > era of big gov't is over"; promising a tax cut and then raising taxes; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To the best of my knowledge, the taxes were raised on very high income individuals and the tax hike did not affect rest of the taxpayers. These very high income taxpayers are the ones who could afford to pay extra taxes. Please correct me if I am wrong. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:04:31 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: In message <961106190516_223348448@emout10.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >The only problem I can see in my sharing this psychogenetic perspective is >that I may have inadvertently put Alan in a bind: in order to match your >apotheosis, I wonder if he now has to quickly say he is no longer the >"person" who needed the apology. . . . > >In any case, MK Ramadoss, you are my kind of theosophist! (But so is Brother >Alan, of course.) .. which is important! Thanks :-) On a more serious note, we do, from time to time, seem to attract subscribers to the list who feel it in order to give what is clearly intentional offence. I have protested in the past when this has happened, and I will continue to do so if this appears to happen. Doss is a real gentleman, and visibly an honorable man. We do not agree on everything, but we are not required to - that's theosophy, too! With respect, Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 08:36:54 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: 1996 Message-ID: <3281E5F4.45BB@earthlink.net> > To the best of my knowledge, the taxes were raised on very high > income individuals and the tax hike did not affect rest of the taxpayers. Taxes were effectively raised on most people who make over $30,000 a year and certain taxes which effect everyone were implemented. Also taxes were raised on most social security recipients. The main point is that very significant committments were broken. > These very high income taxpayers are the ones who could afford to pay > extra taxes. Actually taxing very higher incomes does not generally result in those individuals paying more in taxes -- it effectively translates into fewer and lower paying jobs. The issue of taxation is a very important one theosophically and esoterically. The coercive use of money is contrary to fundamental principle and a barter/sharing economy is what is emphasized by the Mahatmas. See http://uusers.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 09:17:25 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: 1996 (url correction) Message-ID: <3281EF68.3C51@earthlink.net> > The issue of taxation is a very important one theosophically and > esoterically. The coercive use of money is contrary to fundamental > principle and a barter/sharing economy is what is emphasized by the > Mahatmas. > See http://uusers.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html should be See http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:46:00 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: to Mika Perala, re: a serious question Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107094619.26c7a1ee@mail.eden.com> At 09:01 AM 11/7/96 -0500, Alan wrote: >In message , >"m.k. ramadoss" writes >>Liesel: >> >>Add my name to those who have been immensely benefitted from the various >>writings of CWL, even though there may be many who are not. > >Add my name as well. Although I have been instrumental in bringing >details of the historical conflicts, claims and counter-claims that have >occurred over the years, I have done so in the interest of truth, and in >part to protest against the "establishment" attitude which appears to >want to hide information about such matters - an attitude which can only >serve to ensure that these matters are kept alive, and detractors of >theosophical ideas get a huge bonus of "condemnatory" material. I appreciate your honest response - a mark of true T/theosophis. >In my youth I was much taken with "First Principles of Theosophy" by >Jinarajadasa. Much of this work is a highly competent presentation of >CWL's summary of theosophical teaching. Some of its contents can be >seen today as of doubtful accuracy (particularly material based upon the >"Lives of Alcyone"). I have often urged over the years that this now >very scarce work be reprinted, but understand from the Gen. Sec. of the >TS in England that Adyar will not reprint it "because it contains a >great many inaccuracies". Although I would agree with our Gen. Sec., I >would still like to see a reprint of this book. As a genuine and >sincerely held presentation of theosophical ideas, it still remains one >of the best introductions I have ever read, and I commend its perusal to >any serious student who is open-minded enough to reach his or her own >conclusions. The TPH in India could easily add a new preface outlining >the perceived areas of inaccuracy. > I will not be surprised if someone like Health Research publishes this material. If TS choses, it can make it available for free on Internet. If the publication is already available in some electronic medium, the effort/cost would be very negligible. I would share a very interesting anecdote. Two decades ago I took a course on General Systems Theory. The course dealt with how one can take holistic view of all systems and especially how one can account for the interaction between multitude of systems that exist in nature and the kind of problems one sees at the point of contact between systems. The course was taught by a very well known professor in the USA. I loaned him CJ's book as it was the only book I had with me at that time. The white anglo professor grew-up in the Southwest in the traditional Baptist religious environment and the book was an eye opener and was like lighting up a dark room in which one has spent half his life and was thrilled. While he did not formally join the TS, he was a practical humanitarian who helped everyone without any discrimination - an achievement for a man who grew up in a segregated southern environment. I feel that the book could do some good in spite of its shortfalls. also read some of CWL's works, which I found harder going at the time, >but I am bound to acknowledge that without these two authors, together >with many others, my interest in theosophical ideas, and later >membership of the TS might never have taken place. We all owe them a >debt of gratitude, and if they had faults, then we too have our own >faults. If this were not the case, theosophical teachings would perhaps >be unnecessary! > >Just for the record. > >Alan MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:02:44 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: A Serious Question Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107100302.1e073b96@mail.eden.com> At 09:24 AM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <961106190516_223348448@emout10.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com >writes >>The only problem I can see in my sharing this psychogenetic perspective is >>that I may have inadvertently put Alan in a bind: in order to match your >>apotheosis, I wonder if he now has to quickly say he is no longer the >>"person" who needed the apology. . . . >> >>In any case, MK Ramadoss, you are my kind of theosophist! (But so is Brother >>Alan, of course.) > >.. which is important! Thanks :-) > >On a more serious note, we do, from time to time, seem to attract >subscribers to the list who feel it in order to give what is clearly >intentional offence. I have protested in the past when this has >happened, and I will continue to do so if this appears to happen. > >Doss is a real gentleman, and visibly an honorable man. We do not agree >on everything, but we are not required to - that's theosophy, too! > Alan, you too are a real gentleman and a visibly an honorable person than me. When someone comes along with the intention of giving intentional offense, while the offender may get his/her ego bloated, IMHO it all looks very dumb and stupid and mostly I treat them gently with the hope that they will over time realize their own stupidity. Also most of these intentional offense givers give up when no one engages them seriously or give them a dose of their own medicine. Since we need more newbees to keep this list and Theosophy alive and flourish, I usually try to be a lot more tolerant with them (newbees) compared to battle seasoned veterans. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:07:20 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: 1996 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107100738.1e07e1fa@mail.eden.com> At 09:36 AM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >> To the best of my knowledge, the taxes were raised on very high >> income individuals and the tax hike did not affect rest of the taxpayers. > > Taxes were effectively raised on most people who make over $30,000 >a year and certain taxes which effect everyone were implemented. Also >taxes were raised on most social security recipients. The main point is >that very significant committments were broken. > >> These very high income taxpayers are the ones who could afford to pay >> extra taxes. > > Actually taxing very higher incomes does not generally result in >those individuals paying more in taxes -- it effectively translates into >fewer and lower paying jobs. > > The issue of taxation is a very important one theosophically and >esoterically. The coercive use of money is contrary to fundamental >principle and a barter/sharing economy is what is emphasized by the >Mahatmas. This will be my response on the subject. I have seen first hand the effect of increased taxes on very high income tax payers and their employees as I have consulted with them and prepared their tax returns. I make my living by preparing tax returns for very high income tax payers. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:19:36 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Maillists Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107101954.1e07d43a@mail.eden.com> Hi Do anyone know of any maillists other than theos-xxxx and theos-talk*? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 20:41:07 -0800 From: Mika Perala Subject: Re: serious question Message-ID: <3282B9E3.5574@dlc.fi> Liesel wrote: > Dear Mika, > > I know how you feel about Leadbeater, because all that hate mongering >did > something to my memory of him too. But let me tell you that I think >most of > the Adyar membership continues to think highly of CWL. Yes, at least here in Finland they mostly do. >Besides that, I know > of 3 of his pupils who insist that he was no such thing. There are >records > from them in writing, and I've heard one of them say so, and I've seen >some > of the records. They think of him as an initiate. What does it actually mean when someone is said to be an "initiate"? >These 3 were being trained > by CWL when they were 10 and 11 years old. They lived in the same house >with > CWL. The mother of these children was clairvoyant. She could read >auras. She > would never have entrusted her children , whom she loved, to a man who >had > something sinister in his aura. I know there's testimony to the >contrary. > But I heard it from the horse's mouth. I hope you can believe that, or >at > least give it some weight. I am glad that you told me this. It gives it some weight indeed and after all I was not there. I can only read about those things. Still, it is very hard for me to understand the "Star of the East"-business. For me it looks like they were going to start a new religion and nominate themselves as the "Apostoles". IMO, it is indication of some lack of discrimination. And it is more harder for me to believe that Adepts would have been behind all that and that Krishnamurti was some kind of betrayer (when he dissolved the whole thing) like some theosophists have suggested(not on this list). and then m.k.ramadoss wrote: > > Liesel: > > Add my name to those who have been immensely benefitted from the various > writings of CWL, even though there may be many who are not. I admit that some of his books have been beneficial for me too but some are just waste of time reading(_for me_ anyway). Lives of Alcyone is a good example of the latter. Theosophical soap opera... 8) > As a matter of historical record, during the time when the accusations > against CWL was its height and there was almost a rebellious situation >at > a National Convention (I believe in Australia), Krishnaji stood up for > him and his address to the Convention satisfied the membership at the > convention. Knowing the integrity of Krishnaji, this speaks for itself. >I > think this piece may be of interest to some on this list. Thank you for telling this. Don`t remember if I had heard about this before. Or then I have just ignored it... And Alan said: < > I also read some of CWL's works, which I found harder going at the time, > but I am bound to acknowledge that without these two authors, together > with many others, my interest in theosophical ideas, and later > membership of the TS might never have taken place. We all owe them a > debt of gratitude, and if they had faults, then we too have our own > faults. If this were not the case, theosophical teachings would perhaps > be unnecessary! > > Just for the record. > > Alan And this made the record sound much better!! 8) Mika There is no theosophical society higher than truth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 20:18:08 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Mahatma Letters Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961107191808.0068dc28@xs4all.nl> To Daniel Calwell: I am prepared to accept that the handwriting experts did not see any correspondence between HPB and the Mahatma's handwriting (although they seem to have written in different script even within one message (chela's, no doubt!). Then we can go one step further and ask ourselves may these letters be compared with spiritualistic automatic writing (read the Shephard's Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology on this point)such as those of Stainton Moses, Mrs.Piper, Geraldine Cummins, and Jane Roberts? Or in other words do we have to accept for truth everything that is being channeled on the authority of the entities, whoever they may be? (Unless HPB wrote them deliberately) "No, of course not", most Theosophists will exclaim. We are to examine and study its contents and then come to a decision. Well, in that respect a lot has already been disproven by advances in scientific research. Their ethical/spiritual content almost everyone agrees on. But how are we to judge whether such concepts as Atman, Manas, Buddhi, manvantara, globes, rounds, races, karma, reincarnation etc etc represent the truth? Undoubtedly if we were to possess higher means of comprehension we would look back on our presentday speculations as we now look back on mediaval superstition at worst, or at best that we missed the point completely. Forgivably against the background of the limited frame of reference in the 20th century. Finally, don't ask me for evidence or examples, I do not have the time to dig up everything said by the various correspondents/authors, better qualified, in these newsgroups and in literature. I am sure Daniel knows them quite well. Thus, it is my opinion based on literature I have read so far. If Daniel Caldwell has come to a different conclusion, I respect it. Much of the outcome IMHO depends on how much one is emotionally attached to the Theosophic belief-system. I compare it to Christian fundamentalists who argue endlessly about "God's Word" in their newsgroups and will never yield an inch, whatever argument. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Nov 96 14:07:42 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Atlante0_Egyptians resursuface in Houston Exhibit Message-ID: <961107190741_74024.3352_BHT253-1@CompuServe.COM> Hi all! I have been on a breif sabatical (but less than seven anything), but I'm back! I haven't kept up with all since I got off line and couldn't get back on by hook or crook! But seriously folks, the Egyptian exhibit in Houston is the most complete and uncensored you can hope for this side of Cairo. The TUT and Ankhnateen stuff is all there in a magical setting (complete with spooky music that take you on a journey to the underworld of the Gods that if they weren't from Atlantis I'll eat my crook and flail. The Egyptian alphabet is most revealing. Those little monkeys not to mention the birds, snakes et al seemed to enjoy climbing in all sort of magical contortions to give us those nasty heiroglyphics! Brother and sisters! I was overwhelmed. You can even see where they broke off the phalllic connections between the divine menageries cum dieties. I felt right at home like I had seen it all before, but believe me THAT wasn't a disappointment. Well, I keep experience strange network crashes so I better send this before something happens again. I hope to get back in the swchwing of things. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Nov 96 14:11:43 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Don't go ANN! Message-ID: <961107191142_74024.3352_BHT253-2@CompuServe.COM> Hi folks! I'm going to be taking leave of the list for a while. I have things to do, especially with the holidays coming up and there is an urgency to finish the web page I'm doing by the end of this month. If you care to take a look at it: http://www.cris.com/~Bermingh/ -Ann E. Bermingham Was it something I said? Was it something I wore? Ann stay tuned, phlease. My breath seems to have powerful long distance effects. I was give a scholarship to Krotona despite my little faux pas post. BUt words against Senor Capricorn were not taken with a grain of salt. It seem that councils were held in the night and I am deemed unsuited for Krotona. I don't know how to take it all. ANy ideas? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Nov 96 14:16:59 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Politics and Sports make strange bedfellows! Message-ID: <961107191659_74024.3352_BHT253-3@CompuServe.COM> For some strange reason I am convinced that the real concern in the US empire is not the elections but the serpentine and arabesque movements of the sports world. I think that the politician, sports stars not to mention Las Vegas biggies are all in bed together so to speak and the games and elections are all played out before the first exit poll is cast - asked. Nobody can focus on Clinton-Dole when there are mesmerized by football pots and squares. How did I ever miss all this? It certainly has a spritiual demension if you are looking to the left hand path. The left hand and other appendiges seem to enter a lot of orifices and I'm not just talking words from the umpire. How about a TAROT of SPORTS? now that is a new tarot we really need! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Nov 96 14:20:18 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Pope considers evolution Message-ID: <961107192017_74024.3352_BHT253-4@CompuServe.COM> I heard that the Pope is ruminating on evolution as a viable hypothesis. I say, Oh girl, I love your dress, but your purse is on fire! Maybe he will consider next if the earth is flat and encircled by the son. Politics and sports! Hey, it happens in the Vatican too, fashion friends. Can you say, OUR THING. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Nov 96 14:24:02 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Cancer, Diet and Spirituality Message-ID: <961107192401_74024.3352_BHT253-5@CompuServe.COM> Cancer is NOT a fashion item. But what is all this talk about managed care, diet and hair line. Is losing weight, those lips, those abs, and food of the gods connected. I don't know, but I think physicians are about to let loose with the real scoop. I hope it is ready to wear. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Nov 96 14:28:33 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Can everything be digitized? Message-ID: <961107192832_74024.3352_BHT253-6@CompuServe.COM> If music and video can be digitized, what is next? Have you tried long distance modemology. Do you have real rapport with you cellular phone. Can you talk to your TV modem to modem. Picture phones are hear. The play of consciousness in the web of the universe is here. Can you say, lila Layla, you've go me on my knees! Layla Siva, I beg you darling pleae, ease my weary mind. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:15:21 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: First Principles Message-ID: In message <2.2.16.19961107094619.26c7a1ee@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes >The white anglo professor >grew-up in the Southwest in the traditional Baptist religious environment >and the book was an eye opener and was like lighting up a dark room in which >one has spent half his life and was thrilled. While he did not formally join >the TS, he was a practical humanitarian who helped everyone without any >discrimination - an achievement for a man who grew up in a segregated >southern environment. > > I feel that the book could do some good in spite of its shortfalls. I totally agree. It was my own first real intriduction to theosophical ideas, and I have pressed it on may a student over the past 40 years, every one of whom complained that it was very hard to follow - but those that persevered went on to gain other benefits, mostly like your professor. They may not have become card carrying theosophists, but they got a whole new outlook on life and the world. It took me two whole weeks to fully understand what the book was trying to say (I was 23) and that was reading it almost non-stop whenever I had time to read! Most of my own teaching has been based on Kabbalah, as you know, but I have always told students that they will never properly understand Kabbalah if they cannot first get a grasp of theosophical ideas. (In case anyone missed the reason for all this, we are talking about ~First Principles of Theosophy~ by C.Jinarajadasa, which was published by TPH in Adyar, Madras India through many editions and reprints for many years, but is no longer available.) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 15:26:38 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Apologies all round Message-ID: <199611072026.PAA10469@leo.vsla.edu> Richard, I'm trying to be your kind of Theosophist, have been apologizing to folks in private posts for various faux pas, but my bringing up the Gingrich/Clinton polarity was so far from a skillful way to make my point that I apologize to all. The intention was to say that there is a potential for reconciliation and spiritual maturation in a divided government, if people perceive it. That's all; ignore the specifics. Something about having Mars in Libra in the 3rd house, my astrologer says, makes people try to bring about harmony and balance but their efforts often end up just stirring things up worse than they were before. My having that placement's got something to do with the fate of my books too, I suppose. Patrick, if I promise never to say anything pro-Clinton on the list ever again, or anti-Gingrich, will you please reciprocate? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:09:51 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: The Mahatmas and Their Letters: Attention---Alan Bain and other interested parties Message-ID: <199611072109.OAA05250@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Alan, thanks for your posting on the Mahatma Letters. The reason I asked you for your sources is because I did NOT know what sources YOU were referring to when you made a summary statement concerning the MLs. Below you will find parts of a bibliography I composed some time ago on the MLs. I have excerpted some relevant parts to post on Theos-l. Daniel P.S. I will comment in a second e-mail on two or three statements made by Gilbert in his introduction to Lillie's pamphlet. The Mahatmas and Their Letters: A Bibliography by Daniel H. Caldwell {Extracts only} A. Testimonials to the Existence of the Mahatmas/Receipt of Mahatma Letters B. Major Texts of the Mahatma Letters C. Miscellaneous Sources of Mahatma Letters D. Facsimiles of Mahatma Letters E. A.P. Sinnett---Major Recipient of Mahatma Letters (1) Sinnett's Works on the Mahatma Letters (2) Sinnett's Search for the Mahatmas F. Major Works on the Mahatma Letters G. Miscellaneous Studies on the Mahatma Letters H. Some Controversies Surrounding the Mahatma Letters (1) Handwriting/Textual Analysis of the Mahatma Letters (2) Esoteric Buddhism---The Initial Con-troversy (1883) (3) The Kiddle Incident (1883-1884) (4) The Kingsford-Maitland Controversy (1883-1884) (5) The Arthur Lillie Controversy (1884) (6) The Mars-Mercury Controversy (7) The Prayag Letter Controversy (8) The Hare Brothers' Controversy (9) The Hugh Shearman Controversy I. The Process of Precipitation ___________________________________________________________________ F Major Works on the Mahatmas and Their Letters Barborka, Geoffrey A. The Mahatmas and Their Letters. Adyar, Madras, India: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1973. xviii + 422 pp. Codd, Clara M. Theosophy As The Masters See It. Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1926. viii + 369 pp. Hanson, Virginia. Masters and Men: The Human Story in The Mahatma Letters. Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1980. xxix + 417 pp. (hardbound) Hanson, Virginia. An Introduction to The Mahatma Letters: A Study Course. Wheaton, Illinois: Department of Education, The Theosophical Society in Amrica, 1983. 97 pp. Hanson, Virginia. "Notes on The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett." Ojai, California, 1986. Typescript. xi + 326 pp. Hare, William Loftus and Hare, Harold Edward. Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters? London, England: Williams & Norgate, 1936. 326 pp. Hastings, Beatrice. Defence of Madame Blavatsky. Volume 1. Worthing, England: The Hastings Press, 1937. 60 pp. Jinarajadasa, C.J. Did Madame Blavatsky Forge the Mahatma Letters? Adyar, Madras, India: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1934. 55 pp. Jinarajadasa, C.J. The "K.H." Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. Adyar, Madras, India: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1941. 109 pp. Johnson, Paul. In Search of the Masters: Behind the Occult Myth. South Boston, Virginia: The Author, 1990. iv + 305 pp. Linton, George E. and Hanson, Virgina. Readers' Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. Adyar, Madras, India: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1972. xxi + 308 pp. Neff, Mary K. The "Brothers" of Madame Blavatsky. Adyar, Madras, India: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1932. vi + 125 pp. Sinnett, Alfred Percy. The Occult World. London: Tribmer & Co., 1881. 172 pp. Sinnett, Alfred Percy. Esoteric Buddhism. London: Trubner & Co., 1883. xx + 215 pp. H2 The Kiddle Incident (1883-1884 and later) (Items are in Chronological order of publication) Kiddle, Henry. "Esoteric Buddhism," [Letter to the Editor.], Light (London, England), September 1, 1883, p. 302. Sinnett, Alfred Percy. "Mr. Sinnett's Reply to Mr. Kiddle," [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), September 22, 1883, p. 424. Olcott, Henry Steel. "The Theosophical Society," [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), October 11, 1884, pp. 417-418. Olcott, Henry Steel. "The Kiddle Mystery," [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), November 17, 1883, p. 504. Massey, Charles Carleton. "The Theosophical Society and Its Critics," [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), November 17, 1883, pp. 504-505. Morgan's article in Dec. 83 Theosophist T. Subba Row's article in Dec. 83 Theosophist Kiddle, Henry. "Koot Hoomi," [Letter to the Editor.], Light (London, England), December 8, 1883, p. 540. Morgan, Ellen H. "A Defence of Madame Blavatsky's Views and Phenomenal Abilities," [Letter to the Editor], The Medium and Daybreak (London, England), January 4, 1884, pp. 5-6. Sinnett, A.P. Appendix to 4th edition of The Occult World. Moses, Stainton. His Review of Sinnett's Appendix. Quodlibet. "The Kiddle `Explanation,'" [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), July 26, 1884, p. 304. Massey, Charles Carleton. "The Explanation of the `Kiddle Incident' in the Fourth Edition of the Occult World," Light (London, England), July 26, 1884, pp. 307-309. Massey, Charles Carleton. "Mr. Arthur Lillie on the Kiddle Incident," [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), August 9, 1884, p. 323. Kiddle, Henry. "More on the Theosophical `Rosetta Stone,'" [Letter to the Editor], Light (London, England), September 20, 1884, pp. 386-387. Coleman, William Emmette. "Henry Kiddle and the Mahatma, or H.K. Versus K.H.," The Carrier Dove (San Francisco, California), January, 1891, pp. 5-6 and February, 1891, pp. 39-41. etc/ etc ____________________________________________________________________ H8 The Hare Brothers' Controversy (Items are in Chronological order of publication) Hare, William Loftus and Hare, Harold Edward. Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters? London, England: Williams & Norgate, 1936. 326 pp. Stokes, H.N. "Demolishing the Mahatmas," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), June-July 1936, pp. [1-7] Fortune, Dion. [Book Review of Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?] The Inner Light (London, England), July, 1936, pp. 185-189. Thomas, Margaret A. "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?", The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. 17, August 15, 1936, pp. 167-170. Stokes, H.N. "Did H.P. Blavatsky Write These Mahatma Letters?", The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), August-September, 1936, pp. [1-4] Stokes, H.N. "The Hare Twins and `A Libel on a Laureate,'" The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), August-September, 1936, p. [10]. Cox, Harold R.W. "Who Wrote the March-Hare Attack on the Mahatmas?," The Canadian Theosophist, October 15, 1936, pp. 225-243. Ryan, Charles J. "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?" The Theosophical Forum (Point Loma, California), October 1936, pp. 253-263. Stokes, H.N. "The Bogus Mahatmic Americanisms of the Brothers Hare," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), October 1936, pp. [1-7]. Editorial in Occult Review, Oct. 1936. Savage, Helen. "The Hare Attack Repulsed," The Occult Review (London), October 1936, pp. 251-256. Stokes, H.N. "Choice Tidbits from the Hares' Book on The Mahatma Letters," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), November 1936, pp. [1-5]. Cousins, James. H. "The Blavatsky Riddle Again," The Theosophist (Adyar, Madras, India), November, 1936, pp. 152-156. [Gardner, Mrs. Adelaide] "The Real Problem of The Mahatma Letters," The Theosophist (Adyar, Madras, India), November, 1936, pp. 156-157. Ryan, Charles J. "An Important Correction," [Letter to the Editor], The Canadian Theosophist, December 15, 1936, pp. 326-338. Stokes, H.N. "The Hare Brothers' Arsenal of `Duds,'" The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), December 1936, pp. [1-5]. Wood, Ernest. "The Masters' Signatures," The Theosophist (Adyar, Madras, India), Vol. 58, December 1936, pp. 259-262. Hudson, Irne Bastow. "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?" Answered. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: The Author, 1936. 47 pp. Stokes, H.N. "The Hare Brothers on the Motives of H.P. Blavatsky," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), January 1937, pp. [1-5]. Hare, William Loftus and Hare, Harold Edward. "The Mahatma Letters," [Letter to the Editor], The Occult Review (London, England), January 1937, pp. 52-53, and continued on pp. 55, 57, 59 and 61. Stokes, H.N. "The Hares Use a Boomerang in Rebuttal," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), February, 1937, pp. [1-2.] Stokes, H.N. "The Hares on He-Mahatmas and She-Mahatmas," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), March 1937, pp. [1-7] Hare, William Loftus. "William Loftus Hare in Rebuttal," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), March, 1937, pp. [7-8]. Stokes, H.N. "Mr. Hare Contradicts Himself about Mahatma Letters," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), March, 1937, pp. [8-9]. Hare, William Loftus. Letter to the Editor. The Canadian Theosophist, April, 1937, pp. Smythe, C.T. Reply to Hare, C.T., April, 1937, p. Stokes, H.N. "A Trip to Reviewland---Hare Reviewers on Parade," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), April, 1937, pp. [1-6]. Jinarajadasa, C. "Did H.P. Blavatsky Invent the Mahatmas?", The Theosophist (Adyar, Madras, India), May, 1937, pp. 105-109. Stokes, H.N. "A Trip to Reviewland---II," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), May-June, 1937, pp. [1-4]. Stokes, H.N. "Letter to `The Occult Review' About the Hare Brothers," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), July, 1937, pp. [6-7]. Alberti, Amalia de. "H.P. Blavatsky and the Press," The Modern Mystic (London, England), July 1937, pp. 18-20. Stokes, H.N. "A Handwriting Expert De Luxe," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), August, 1937, pp. [4-6]. Hare, William Loftus and Hare, Harold Edward. The Mahatma Letters: Alibi and Post Mortem Defences. Letchworth, England: G.W. Wardman, 1937. 20 pp. Stokes, H.N. "The Hare Volcano Erupts Again," The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.), December, 1937, pp. [5-8]. Hastings, Beatrice. Defence of Madame Blavatsky. Volume 1. Worthing, England: The Hastings Press, 1937. 60 pp. [This is an incomplete version of what I have more recently updated. DHC] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 15:56:19 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Apologies all round Message-ID: <32824CF0.566B@earthlink.net> Hello Paul, > The intention was to say that there is a potential for > reconciliation and spiritual maturation in a divided > government, if people perceive it. Yea verily, reconciliation with honesty and integrity would be a wonderful step of spiritual maturation! > Patrick, if I promise never to say anything pro-Clinton on the > list ever again, or anti-Gingrich, will you please reciprocate? Sure. Also as previously mentioned the issues regarding what role gov't and all of our institutions should play in our civilization is I believe centrally relevant to the work of theosophy today. A discussion along these lines perhaps has been a long time in the waiting. Has anyone put together some quotes and references from various theosophical writings on this topic? Cheers, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:57:56 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Some brief comments on Robert Gilbert's Introduction to Arthur Lillie's Pamphlet Message-ID: <199611072157.OAA15464@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Robert Gilbert writes: > the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin >of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?, >by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has yet to be rationally >rebutted. In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally rebutted in a series of 12 articles or so by Dr. H.N. Stokes. Please refer to the partial bibliography on the MLs posted to theos-l and theos-talk. A number of other rebuttals were effectively made of the Hare book. I myself have done extensive research on the Hare Book and find that most of their criticism is weak and the book is full of mistakes (I kid you not!!). The book is certainly an attack on the MLs but I think not the "most devastating." Any one who reads the Hare book owes it to himself/herself to read the various reviews and rebuttals of the Hares' arguments before they make up their minds. Gilbert writes: >Arthur Lillie's forgotten pamphlet of 1883 >deserves to be read and studied with care. Actually the pamphlet was written and published in 1884. Gilbert writes: >At the time of its publication Koot Hoomi Unveiled was attacked with >vitriolic abuse but with precious little reason, and Lillie's strictures >have remained largely unanswered. With hindsight it is possible to >point out the superficial nature of some of his comments on Tibetan >Buddhism, but his critics necessarily used the same texts and >commentaries as were available to him and their counter arguments thus >carry very little weight. >Such ripostes as they did make were fully answered in Lillie's long >letter justifying his case that appeared in the journal Light in August, >1884, and which is reprinted here. [Text available - AB] >While he clearly rejected the ideas of H.P.B. he remained scrupulously >objective when he wrote his studies of her, and his views on the Mahatma >letters deserve careful consideration - whether or not we agree with >them. Although Lillie does make a few valid criticisms, he also makes numerous assertions that are downright silly. Readers should study Lillie's pamphlet for themselves but should also consult OBSERVATIONS ON MR. LILLIE'S "KOOT HOOMI UNVEILED." by the President of the London Lodge of theTheosophical Society, 1884. Also consult H.P. Blavatsky's two articles in "Light" magazine in August and October, 1884 in which she herself answers and rebuts some of Mr. Lillie's assertions. Her first article is titled: "Mr. A. Lillie's Delusions." See HPB's Collected Writings, Volume VI, pp. 269-280 and pp. 288-294. There are a number of other sources that a serious inquirer into these issues should consult in order to ascertain the validity of Mr. Lillie's charges. By all means, read Lillie but consult other sources to have a balanced perspective. Also notice that even Gilbert admits: "With hindsight it is possible to point out the superficial nature of some of his comments on Tibetan Buddhism. . . ." Well, Lillie also made "superficial" comments on many items pertaining to Theosophy and to various historical/biographical items relating to HPB and the Mahatmas. Daniel H. Caldwell > Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:14:45 +0000 > From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" > Subject: Mahatma Letters (Gilbert) PREFACE to Reprint of "Koot Hoomi Unveiled" by R.A.Gilbert All of the central tenets of Theosophy - as the term is understood within the Theosophical Society - are contained in The Mahatma Letters, which were transmitted to A.P. Sinnett and others between 1880 and 1884. Extracts from the letters were published by Sinnett in The Occult World (1881) and Esoteric Buddhism (1883) but they were not published in their entirety until 1923 when A.T. Barker issued them as The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. The letters provide an effective source-book for the doctrines elaborated in H.P. Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine (1888) and espoused by the great majority of latter-day theosophists, but the origin of the letters remains problematic. Sinnett believed that they were miraculously 'precipitated', travelling thousands of miles to reach him in India or England from the Mahatmas' home in Tibet. Others remained sceptical, arguing that the letters were not only delivered by Mme. Blavatsky but also composed and written by her. The battle-lines are still drawn up, with believers and sceptics hurling a steady stream of invective at each other and rarely supporting their positions by rational argument. Perhaps the most sober defence has been offered by Geoffrey Barborka in The Mahatmas and their Letters (1973), while the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?, by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has yet to be rationally rebutted. Arguing over the source of the letters may seem pointless if one considers that the real issue is the spiritual merit, or otherwise, of their content. But spiritual truths are not best served if they are disseminated by fraud, and it is as well to establish the truth about the origin of the letters (insofar as it can ever be fully known) if we are to judge the contents on their value as spiritual philosophy. For this reason, if for no other, Arthur Lillie's forgotten pamphlet of 1883 deserves to be read and studied with care. At the time of its publication Koot Hoomi Unveiled was attacked with vitriolic abuse but with precious little reason, and Lillie's strictures have remained largely unanswered. With hindsight it is possible to point out the superficial nature of some of his comments on Tibetan Buddhism, but his critics necessarily used the same texts and commentaries as were available to him and their counter arguments thus carry very little weight. Such ripostes as they did make were fully answered in Lillie's long letter justifying his case that appeared in the journal Light in August, 1884, and which is reprinted here. [Text available - AB] It should also be borne in mind that Arthur Lillie was neither an hysterical defender of the claims of Spiritualism against those of Theosophy, nor an unthinking, fundamentalist Christian opponent of 'Esoteric Buddhism'. He was a sound scholar with a profound knowledge of, and sympathy for, the Buddhist religion. From 1883 to 1912 he produced a series of scholarly works on the life of the Buddha and on Buddhist and Vedantist influences upon both early Christianity and classical Greece. He was a Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, in whose library his books are still to be found. On a more popular level he wrote brief biographies of mystics and other esoteric writers, ranging from Boehme and Swedenborg to Stainton Moses and Madame Blavatsky. While he clearly rejected the ideas of H.P.B. he remained scrupulously objective when he wrote his studies of her, and his views on the Mahatma letters deserve careful consideration - whether or not we agree with them. Indeed, it is only by emulating Lillie's meticulous attention to detail that we shall be able to arrive at a true understanding of the origin and nature of the Mahatma letters, and only then can we truly be said to have stood firm by the motto of the Theosophical Society: 'There is no Religion higher than Truth.' R.A. GILBERT Bristol, September 1995 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 20:41:54 UTC From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: US Elections and theosophy Message-ID: <199611080141.3109600@microfone.net> I second Max' post of 11/06 -- Theos-l is not the appropriate forum for partisan politics. "Reasonable men can disagree", and *anything* posted here of a partisan political nature is going to raise hackles on otherwise reasonable folks who happen to believe strongly in the "wrong" political party. There are plenty of places on the Web that are appropriate for just such partisan discussions. But to try and associate "esoteric" or "theosophical" with any political party is not only incorrect, it is intentionally devisive. Piscean. whatever. Jim Q: why is duct tape like the Force? A: because it has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:40:07 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Checkout the new WWW homepage on Madame Blavatsky Message-ID: <199611081640.JAA23263@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Students of Theosophy, please check out the new WWW homepage on Madame Blavatsky. It's URL address is: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/ [See important announcement at end of this posting.] THE BLAVATSKY FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1844 Tucson, Arizona 85702, USA A non-profit Information Center dedicated to the dissemination of information on the life, writings and teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), Russian-born Occultist and co-founder of The Theosophical Society, demonstrated psychic powers of a startling nature and claimed personal contact with highly developed Masters living in Tibet and India. A well-versed student of metaphysical and esoteric lore, she promoted a greater Western knowledge of Eastern religions, philosophies and mythologies. Madame Blavatsky's major works (Isis Unveiled, The Secret Doctrine, The Key to Theosophy, and The Voice of the Silence) are considered classics in occult and Theosophical literature. TABLE OF CONTENTS >From Long Sealed Ancient Fountains: An Introduction to Theosophy Some Quotations from H.P.B. and Her Masters Electronic Versions of H.P. Blavatsky's Writings A Core Library of Suggested Reading Need More Information? Theosophical Links [This section incomplete and still under construction.] Announcement! If you have written or have a desire to write something on Madame Blavatsky, her life, writings or teachings and want to share it with the WWW audience, The Blavatsky Foundation is planning to have a new section on its home page devoted to such writings by present day students. Here is your chance to SHARE your insights and discoveries with other students and inquirers. In time, we hope that this section will grow into a minilibrary of information on Blavatsky and her Theosophical teachings. Please contact us at blafoun@azstarnet.com about your article or essay and we will arrange for it to be posted in the near future. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 00:04:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Mahatma Letter No 5 Message-ID: I have placed the file Mahat005.zip in the HISTORY subdirectory on the TI Web Page below. When unzipped it is a plain text file. A service for Theosophy International. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 17:36:29 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: On the Mahatma Letters and Handwriting experts Message-ID: <199611080137.RAA80704@scv3.apple.com> Resending this message, which never appeared in the digest for some reason.... >Have you ever heard of Dr. Vernon Harrison? He is the handwriting expert >who examined the original MSS of the Mahatma Letters and stated in 1986 >that in his professional opinion, HPB did not write the Mahatma Letters. I have reviewed Harrison's article and I was not impressed. It ignores the bulk of Hodgson's case (most of which does not rest on handwriting analysis), repeats old charges that Hodgson responded to more than a century ago, ignores inconvenient points in the handwriting analysis, does no independent research into anomalies in the record (such as the letter reported by Boris de Zirkoff in "Rebirth of the Occult Tradition" in which a letter from one master was written in the other's writing), makes false statements about the state of photographic printing in 1885, and indulges repeatedly in personal attacks and snide imprecations in lieu of argument. The apperarance of the Harrison article on the SPR Journal has been represented by Sylvia Cranston as an official turnabout by the SPR. In fact, though, the editors of the journal felt the need to distance themselves from Harrison's piece in a foreword, insisting strongly that the Journal does not express corporate opinions and that the editors had decided to run a piece critical of Hodgson simply in order that defenders of Theosophy could have their say. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 02:10:04 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Maillists Message-ID: <01BBCD19.FC0CE2C0@rvik-ppp-118.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBCD19.FC1483E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Hi >Do anyone know of any maillists other than theos-xxxx and theos-talk*? >MKR Einar here:=20 I have been a member of two mailing lists. that I would like to = recommend. One is "Bridge-L" - Bridge Across Consciousness - which I highly = recommend (but please don't bring your (un)theosophical arguments over = there!). SUBSCRIBE BRIDGE-L YOUR NAME - TO: Since I'm at it, I might just share an innocent notion with you my = dearest Universal Family. When we enter a discussion on spiritual level (I would rather call it = dialog or an act of communion), we should try to maintain as positive = and compassionate outlook as possible, because that is (almost) the only = way to get real spiritual contact with each other. To do this we have to = practice some non-attachment (vairagia) from our and our neighbors = opinions. In my experience there are some thing that we can see or understand = easily if we think a little.=20 For one thing an opinion or a view exists only in the mind of the = beholder, and has no reality anywhere else. My views show only a very = limited and distorted outlook on my interior and never any truth, = whatsoever. So if I tell you as my sincere opinion that you are a fool, = my dear Doss, you should either fall off your seat in amusement, or = (better) feel very sorry for this my troubled mind. Critique, be it = professional or amateurish, only shows the interior furniture of the = critic himself.=20 But as an advice from a loving heart, If you feel offset by a remark, = look inside for the soar point in you, take it out in the light and look = at it frankly until it's gone, blown with the winds. Another thing is - to me - a spiritual fact. There is a spiritual = statement, which says that the human Free Will is the most sacred thing = in the world. NEVER, but never, does an ADEPT (I mean a real one!) ever = trespass the individual free will. Not even "God Almighty" (a Christian = term) lifts a finger to help a soul in need - unless being asked for = help (on one or another level of the consciousness, i.e. sometimes = subconsciously). This has been realized as a fact in some psychological = quarters as in control theory (Glasser), and in the treatment of = codependency problems within alcoholic families. So, never attempt to = control (or even influence) other individuals, and more important, don't = ever let others control you(r mind). There is an altogether different way to "communion" with each other. But = it needs a painstaking earnestness and total positive spiritual = commitment. It is the main point in the "eight insight" of the Celestine = Prophesy, and is about consciously breaking down barriers between people = so that they can begin to "think with the same Mind" the transcendental = Mind of Unity or wholeness.=20 I have found that If I am in a difficult or even outraged situation, I = can almost always calm it down in seconds, by simply and honestly = describing how I suffer inside because of the situation. Earnest, true = confession breaks down the most concrete barriers between people. (You = know this, Doss.) Well, this is only a little peek through the keyhole of my mind. I too = have my barriers, and I too am sensitive when assaulted. But I have seen = some light in the darkness and would so much like to point a finger to = it! But don't gaze at the finger. Please walk into the light itself, by = pondering, meditating, trying and probing for yourself the truth of = every spiritual advise you can get hold of, irrespectively how crooked = or dirty the loudspeaker may seem to bee or have been. (Don't touch the = speaker, just listen, if you want to remain clean!!!). Ho, Ho, It's late! Greetings from Iceland.... Einar. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBCD19.FC1483E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhECAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAFHy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEADgAAAFJFOiBNYWlsbGlzdHMAowQBBYADAA4A AADMBwsACAACAAoABAAFAPsAASCAAwAOAAAAzAcLAAgAAgAKAAQABQD7AAEJgAEAIQAAADMyNDVE QTFCRTUzOEQwMTFBMTBENDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAMkGAQOQBgC4DAAAEgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAA AAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AKD1lPQZzbsBHgBwAAEAAAAOAAAAUkU6IE1haWxsaXN0cwAA AAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG7zRn0lBvaRUg45RHQoQ1ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAA HgAfDAEAAAASAAAAYW5uYXNiQGlzbWVubnQuaXMAAAADAAYQjkHARgMABxBPDAAAHgAIEAEAAABl AAAASElET0FOWU9ORUtOT1dPRkFOWU1BSUxMSVNUU09USEVSVEhBTlRIRU9TLVhYWFhBTkRUSEVP Uy1UQUxLKj9NS1JFSU5BUkhFUkU6SUhBVkVCRUVOQU1FTUJFUk9GVFdPTUFJTAAAAAACAQkQAQAA AEULAABBCwAA5BIAAExaRnX05Zx9/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMy A8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzO3AuQHEwKDNBLMFMg1A0V3EzUHbQKDNhEFE1MP3X0XCoAIzwnZOxu/ MjU1DwKACoENsQtgbmcxMKwzOQr7FWIyFWBjAECGIAqFCotsaTM2DfCDC1UZIXMxNiA+C0ZXFFEL 8hNQbxPQYwVASB5pIK4fnyMvJDVEbyAFAHB5AiBlIGtub+kH4G9mKHIgAMADECHg1xPABCAkQGgE kCAqYAORYSphb3MteCthKHFkwyr1AZBsayo/JM8l32Mm7yRETUtSLL8frkWnC4AKwSpxZToglkky 0PRhdijQYgnhKHApoBPg5zQgBcApQXR3KGApsguA9GcgKfMuKqIFQDOwNUCsdWwr0CHgayjQdChg WxvABaBtB4ArwC4grE8jKMEEACAiQgUQZGeAZS1MIiAtIDm0PxSwBQArMAQgCFAAgGNpHQhgcyjA BBE6UHdoacMRcDOiaWdobCmQN7cwIChidQVAC1BlYakRsCBkAiAnBUBiBRCPNcEooAhwPdB1bikr AxxvcDxhB0AocHJndZ84ASoiM/AqkjLxISk4RgBTVUJTQ1JJQkZFOmBC8ERHRToQIJBZT1VSB7BB TUMgaTpQVE8zIDwp8wSQdgBAVUNTQlZNLqFFci5FRFUgrFQqcCcqRTlxKmEgSwUQc2hlMqBtCHB0 aTVrOkEi/kwqAQnwNbE6EjxUEYAEILc0cA2xC4BpE9BIQE0qoL5yC3AFQAIgOWAqIWQEAN5jO8AA kAIgNkAoM7AqYP8IYDzwBUA/YSjhB9E1AjxgmyoxKMAsKEEEEC4pCoUOPCI8JBdKKGxAenLAei5U VS1CBJA1oXguREUxXyCHCvsjtCDwIHN1YjXjUqVULyCAD0PLN3EzIFYdUkZDIPg4MjJEsUoiBmFF UFMuvj4hHyInVK8GAAuAYyjQ+EknbShwBUBMAE/wM7D2bTzhBUBqO8AFQEiACsC/KNADkQuAKQBg cAIwICkA30jwTNED8CpgTqNtKZANsFtiQUnBVQMAQXFzQJFG60iwAxB5OEZXKnBjkSjQH0ERKoFL kU1XTMJzcGn5BRB0dUCRPkAz8AMgTgH/NtRMgCpjQIEDIEyhTUAHQP5vNdAFsQORANBMsSlQakD3 N+E/wE2xKU/wZsFIgDbj/0xwKZA3gSmxAjALcShwBCD+cCswTABlESujN9FVgE2TzzaAR2E+ABtQ b2tudQCQ/wJgT+E0IECAO8A3YTZyOXHuKAdABGATwClIAwIgPRH8d2FtoznwBUAbwECRaFj/BaBu ISRxY7M+UDyBKlM2QP5UKGA+oE9kZsEz0zeBE1A/a6E8cGzxA3Ao0CkAbi3bNoB1oWhBAj3Qdgtw TID+ZwcwcyADUnBRa1Ir0D9y/yjAPOEG4BGgKTBoYGxyNjDHM0YDoGRBZXhwBnEJ8P9gcUGzQLF4 1U9xNcE2Y2bB/0CAaDEJ4GsyP8AEgRPAK7L/PlFlwTlgKVBmwX+ScME14e8CQD5ANkAgrEYFsSiy f5TnA5F8lWszIHYIkAfgffD/KgRzkm5RSBJhcHuCT1I0Av9OQDcABJBP8CuyS1IpAHRz/0wAKZAo gTxQfsJpIBGwNkD+TSmQhmIEIG0RKSFzkoZB/wSQKZAh4GFwE9Ar0CuyTUH/N4AAII1RcGZM0WRB bhEGcX9rQyvQKMBBcilyTHA+AGjfbME2cUAwkCI2QFMoYIJB/04RaSADIE6yS2FkQQCQYGF/YlGF ljZjkrNiUnrQcKBs/0/wZEVQA0/wTrJtFXwAKmP+ZmpiKUApUD9jEbBg4jRR/0jAEbBBAk/wBbE9 4BHAZxHfesEJ4AMgjLNAMHJtkQIQ/yqSOXFkQUxwCGBxYSvQh+LlNkBDaIFpcQpQcZJqkv8kIZpw b9SX0WcxAMAT0Ahxv0iAmZFzkovyR/SPR2YIcH9L8QhwR2GIRAUBeKE8wW3pEbBsZoOHQj4BS2I0 Uf5khmBgcXrjgwFBYDWyKnD/CsBhIpgTmmSX8RGxNBCMcvMbwADAcmtP8HCTC4AAkP8NsJtleNIK wW6wbhGHYj9h/0/wAZA3UUyiPgGHdSHgTnLfK7JwlGDyetEAcGs9ET/A60jwaoInBCBnT8MCYCkQ v2OVSBID8CvAfQdVVUFjQf8qdDWyOXE6UG3CKNA6UDRw/2hYl6AkcHbhfrM5cbKqgXF/E9GZYzxU ZVATsDZUSBJo+0DwA5FGCdFmYCnRR9Zy4v+2EQUAjVGxdYeENUBTsJzx4E5FVkVScZE+AZATL0/w PqAHkQORQVQAUFT/TfIHgGtydHQosUIAZuBBc99koW+yoIVNQIZgZLMjt3I/A/Ap4LpRJEC9sgOg IkfvBHAUsHLQYYJ5OjBysDtA3mhIYUjwKtIEkG1zICHgfwGAS3JL0TnwKpEoYCpwbP5wspI24Ydi KMCNUTpQP8DvPkAEETQghSNzN1Ar0Jty/cQTKGfzgNMAcCpUaPSiBvM7ak/waS6DcXjySPAHgv9X Eck3PRBCEEcxOXFLUjQjfYnzeo1SwzNrom5RePNw/HN5EXAbQXqQQIKdcKXx/2UxbnJuUXVyA2AD ICsCbZH8KEcLYAQQmjGJJId1vhH/NoB54ylBBaANsH4QgTFgYL8pkCQhcWGjAGOjblJsBaD/iMGi sZegZbEIkDYxkeBP8P+QFZoRb6C2oShg0IbHMAXA/8CDC4AekApQYGFzIEeFvvf/llErsgRgs/Jv oBthAHBhIf8+pJAjPkBMsSpiBCDQhj9h/igFwIfiQhcu3yREMO8gF/+zyNVSN4B0QSpyTUAN0DLx +2MRc9UibCdK0XYOo+JMof/FAktyVYCokaqxNbJkgTvh/nQ74yuzJEBAkW63dNo38PdMAEECNkBJ cmOHo25Cqdf9SBIifAKYsgCQTnE6MIg13kNpIGSxC4Ao0FADYEBQ/QeQedIFS3EG4D4By0k+8e8+ UOgDPqCu8WIKwAiCxcL/NTA0Mn4QQEA+QHjhtmcpkP+AcjQgepAq4eSxgqSvJ2VQ/XkRTYfxOjDS lABxYvHUEf/pcvbyKTJk8YpBBbE8UAbw/wnwO/GDhzO1AhCBITZVkiL/SLCYw+OzPHA28Eyx2KVw Yf96cY1RbtFosGNiYTKAcnLE/9Vhc9HdcXLBapOu4s4yBZH/r9FxkZMyb6CMYolSKLETwPc9EQ2w BPJipZMpETOwVxC/4+KohnG2iDX+VzZARehk/6qRkMDJE55V8ZRNIa7iuDe/dXG44UwR8o/zlE3h WU7D/ykRT3JP/WYGknGqkU+CT5P3jGODJPOBZXDA5bCcQTzw+0gDN1B5+aIpMmRBnMROEf9woDPE ZEEKRokkEiT8IT5w/6ihbvOKoW5iuMD9ARvQ5oTfM7WAsc5Fq+SHdWSn8ejH/zbU9AFIwDyBNzap 1MNaTADmIaPTPqRnYc1QYNJIEvvDdDZAUD5Ec9AscI8yd0L/F0dFEaMwAbNusIEyNbGVgf/nMEwA /pEgcm2BhSQr0NRy/zWym3I/YqMS0oWQ0SkykCL/kzFoZ6SCPnFOsoBydEKIwv8pMcoBCmC+MeBx ZRE9EYwC/zrxcLCOMuOiSOBtoauy8UD/r+B+EKrB3lFz4YCxpSA3gf80IWsyM9dN4ZYgPsI3gBmi /6lDKdQMsGHTV1TKAaZUc9CXYxE3g+xDYz5BbiEwQPtCF1VVSNbBMXLroK4xVjD1TBAhsBxHt3Eh EktweuO+SWBwVjA4ITTRsBxFVlC/VZCwDd9P4F9e6TgtfVVQAgA7MAAAAAMAEBABAAAAAwAREAEA AABAAAcwoDdRJQnNuwFAAAgwoPWU9BnNuwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAABfQ ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBCD19.FC1483E0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 21:14:57 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Masters, letters, Washington Message-ID: <328297A1.66F1@sprynet.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > accepted my fundamental thesis. TMR got raves in the New York > Times Book Review and The Skeptic of all places. That claim is that Actually, I heartily recommend Skeptic magazine (as opposed to The Skeptical Inquirer) to everybody here. They tend to (but not always) give a much more well balanced view of the issues they cover. Note, though, that the CSICOP people are beginning to turn around, as well; James Randi, in particular, has begun to differentiate between people who sincerely believe in what they are doing and people who are trying to put one over on the public. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 21:18:44 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Madame Blavatsky's Baboon Message-ID: <32829884.6C8@sprynet.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > One irate Theosophist accused me of "making a living" off my > "attacks" on HPB. Since the modest royalties from the SUNY > books *almost* precisely equal the losses on their self-published > predecessor, I would have to survive on about -$100 per year > since 1990 for this to be true. Are you ever in the New York area? You're welcome at the Quest Bookshop to do a booksigning, or to give a talk at the New York Theosophical Society (I brought up inviting you to the Board of Directors tonight, so this can be considered official). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 21:22:48 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Common Sense Message-ID: <32829978.DE2@sprynet.com> Art House wrote: > > Who knows what common sense is? Is there even such a thing? Common > sense changes with time and situation. Just an aside. John Algeo, who, among other things, is a noted etymologist, recently mentioned that "common sense" does not, as one might think, derive from sense that is common among people, but from the concept of being able to take the evidence from all 5 senses in common, and properly coordinate the information. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:00:16 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Blavatsky's frauds, the Hoax of the Mahatma Letters and the Myth of the Masters Message-ID: <3282A240.56E5@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > Personally, I would not be over-perturbed if it were established that > HPB wrote them all herself, as I believe some claim is the case. The > content of the letters is certainly of some worthwhile value whoever > wrote them, and in the end, it is the message that counts, rather than > the messenger. Whether or not they were written by adepts, I, for one, would be extremely surprised if Blavatsky wrote the Mahatma Letters. There were a set of Victorian era prejudices in Blavatsky's writings which were noticebly absent in the Mahatma letters (and prejudices in them that were absent in Blavatsky's writings). As I believe that Blavatsky was unaware of these prejudices, I can't see how she could have kept them out of the Mahatma Letters. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:01:43 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: to Mika Perala, re: a serious question Message-ID: <3282A297.6A52@sprynet.com> liesel f. deutsch wrote: > the Adyar membership continues to think highly of CWL. Besides that, I know > of 3 of his pupils who insist that he was no such thing. There are records Dora, Fritz, and who else? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:06:57 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: The Integrity of Krishnaji Message-ID: <3282A3D1.85D@sprynet.com> m.k. ramadoss wrote: > convention. Knowing the integrity of Krishnaji, this speaks for itself. I > think this piece may be of interest to some on this list. Nasty mode on: Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best friend's wife? Nasty mode off. Seriously, I certainly trust Dora and Fritz' word on Leadbeater, but remember that even Krishnamurti was human. (Hell, even the Mahatma's were human; what DID Moria put in his bong? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:59:20 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: re: serious questions Message-ID: <199611080408.XAA05387@ultra1.dreamscape.com> To Mika Perala and Doss Right, the word "initiate" is often bandied about & needs defining. Let's say that Leadbeater was a very highly spiritually evolved person. Technically, "Initiate", to me, means someone who's been given at least 1 initiation. Rumor, down my way, has it that CWL had had several, but I'm really not sure of that, since that's kept secret. Doss, glad to hear that Krishna-j defended CWL. That's another ex-pupil who said it. Mika, you ask about the business with Krishna-j giving up being the new religious leader & etc. I think highly of Annie Besant too, her life as well as her writings. I haven't read too much about what happened there with Krishnamurti, because this kind of politicking just doesn't interest me, but it seems to me that Annie Besant made a mistake, and if CWL was involved, so did he. I think announcing that someone will be the new Messiah just wasn't called for, especially, if one isn't sure that it was true. Well we don't know to this day whether it is or not. He's got his followers, just like anybody else. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 23:07:58 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: ML Message-ID: <199611080417.XAA06168@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >But how are we to judge whether such concepts as Atman, Manas, Buddhi, >manvantara, globes, rounds, races, karma, reincarnation etc etc represent >the truth? Dear folks instead of quibbling about whether these concepts are The Truth, which what difference does it make, why don't we have a look see whether they're useful to us in our daily lives, whether they give us a framework to live by. For example, I always say that reincarnation is the best motivator, because whatever work I can accomplish in this lifetime will accrue to me in the next or the next, ie I'm not just working and once I die it all evaporates. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 23:25 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Jokes Message-ID: TTT wrote: >I probably missed something, but I was offended by the stepping on >testicles comment. Mark told me that it was an innocuous running joke.=20 >Until I understand what=92s up, would it be an innocuous running joke if >it was reversed using the female body part? History of female >oppression does not excuse hostility toward the male sex. Quite true. However, before I attempt to "justify" my testicle barbs, I shall admit that it is inappropriate, and just plain getting old. To me, the main difference about women verbally attacking "body parts" of men is that men are not in real fear that their "body parts" are really in danger. If a man was to get on this discussion list spreading barbs about women's body parts, I think women, and a lot of men, on this list would be concerned. Call me paranoid, but women have good reason to be on alert when a male "threatens" a woman's body part. Genuine fear is rarely a man's response to a woman's ravings. Finally, sometimes bringing the subject of "testicles" is the only way to get men to stand up and take notice. Dismissal of women by men is a very real phenomena, with women trying to make a point being seen as something to guffaw about - until she is forced to bring out the heavy artillary. Being conciliatory and polite, something that is drilled into women's heads, often does not work in a "man's world" or a male-dominated discussion list. (I tried once before to break into this list, being oh-so-demure, and I got nowhere.) > There are plenty of other ways to get good laughs. =20 I really don't think laughs were the aim. But anyway, point taken. I shall do my best to keep from using the most base forms of communication. Apologies to all who were offended. . .well, maybe not all. . .all right, all right. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 00:32 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The Utility of Theosophy Message-ID: Max wrote: >So this your exclusive brand of Brotherhood of humanity leaving out >corrupt politicians, arrogant males, and other kinds of harmful insects, >right? > >OK, I got it. No, that wasn't my point. I know that some theosophical literature pooh-poohs the idea of becoming involved with politics. Which I find rather contradictory when put side by side with one of the most fundamental, and very finest tenets of theosophy, "helping humanity." Elections and other civil events speak of how people feel about the other people they share their country with. If an election results in power handed to a high number of folks (both Democrat and Republican) who are unafraid to promote racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. what does that say about the country, the very people? It would seem to me that the result of this election says that theosophists and all others who promote peace, tolerance, and good will are shirking on the job. Also, if one believes in reincarnation, as theosophy affirms, it would seem that political work and involvement would be foremost. None of us knows what we may return as - a woman, a man, a poor person, a immigrant, a homosexual - do we really want to return to a place where life for those is a hell? I mean, if one doesn't care about other people, at least give a damn about one's self. Compassion cannot flourish in an environment where it is seen as some kind of weakness. I think now, in America, compassion is seen as such. No, I do not think men are the sole cause of it - women are just as guilty. You men that we women love are not dropping dead sooner because you are biologically inferior, you are dropping dead sooner because society mostly insists you be computers packaged in a fleshy material. The wished for return to "traditional values" has a dark side for men, too. That philosophy threatens to pigeon-hole men back into the positions already proven fatal. What it holds for women is already clear. Current events and theosophy, yes, they go together. And I don't think there's anything wrong with jumping up and down when talking about it, it reflects a passion. When people hurl personal insults at each other - a natural human reaction when emotions are high - it doesn't necessarily mean the subjects are too be avoided - it just calls for apologies and reaffirmations of our innate solidarity as theosophists. Not all of us are content with discussions about the technical side of theosophy - some of us want to discuss how theosophy can be put to work, utilized, unfolded. We need both the "techies" and the "non-techies" in order to have the merging of the finest ideas, facts, and opinions. I don't believe the "unfolding of the dialectic" is only according to some divinely driven, unchangeable clock. We can bring forth a better future right now - we don't just have to sit back and wait around until some butt-kicker from "above" has to be sent down to get things moving. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:32:27 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The Utility of Theosophy Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > I know that some theosophical literature pooh-poohs the idea of becoming > involved with politics. Which I find rather contradictory when put side by It has been the policy of the Theosophical Society as an organization keeping out of politics from day one. This policy has served the organization for over a century and will continue to do so. However, leading members of TS have in the past been very active in politics in their *personal* capacity. Annie Besant when she was the International President of the TS, was very involved actively in the Independence Movement of India when she was the President. While she had her office of President at Adyar Campus of TS, she had separate office outside the Campus for her political activities. For one term she was elected as the National President of Indian National Congress and she was the only non Indian who ever held that office. One of the leading members of TS in India was for several years an appointed Senator in the Indian Senate. So all of us who have any interest and inclination to participate in Politics is most welcome to do so. I wish to see Senators and Representatives and Governors with Theosophical background. In these days when *wedge* issues are used to win elections and make make themselves popular, a good dose of Theosophy will go a long way in *really* working for the common good. IMHO it will be appropriate and do a lot of good if the politics discussions are done in one of the usenet groups on this subject. My 2 cents worth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:39:37 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: RE: Maillists Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB wrote: > I have been a member of two mailing lists. that I would like to = > recommend. > > One is "Bridge-L" - Bridge Across Consciousness - which I highly = > recommend (but please don't bring your (un)theosophical arguments over = > there!). > SUBSCRIBE BRIDGE-L YOUR NAME - TO: > The other is the Krishnamurti mailing list - "Listening-L" which has a = > definite KM trait on its discussion. (I thought you knew of this one, = > Doss.) I am aware of it and has been on it longer than theos-xxxx. Thanks for bringing up bridge-l. > > Another thing is - to me - a spiritual fact. There is a spiritual = > statement, which says that the human Free Will is the most sacred thing = > in the world. NEVER, but never, does an ADEPT (I mean a real one!) ever = > trespass the individual free will. This is one of the items which comes loud and clear in the Mahatma Letters. Greetings to everyone. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:45:52 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: re: serious questions Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > To Mika Perala and Doss > > Right, the word "initiate" is often bandied about & needs defining. Let's > say that Leadbeater was a very highly spiritually evolved person. > Technically, "Initiate", to me, means someone who's been given at least 1 > initiation. Rumor, down my way, has it that CWL had had several, but I'm > really not sure of that, since that's kept secret. > > Doss, glad to hear that Krishna-j defended CWL. That's another ex-pupil who > said it. > > Mika, you ask about the business with Krishna-j giving up being the new > religious leader & etc. I think highly of Annie Besant too, her life as well > as her writings. I haven't read too much about what happened there with > Krishnamurti, because this kind of politicking just doesn't interest me, but > it seems to me that Annie Besant made a mistake, and if CWL was involved, so > did he. I think announcing that someone will be the new Messiah just wasn't > called for, especially, if one isn't sure that it was true. Well we don't > know to this day whether it is or not. He's got his followers, just like > anybody else. Recently I had the good fortune to read the famous "Truth is a pathless land" statement of Krishnamurti. The keynote of the statement is the fact that we all should follow Truth - not some individual or some organization - so that each one of us can understand/reach Truth. After all the motto of TS is "There is No Religion Higher Than Truth". When time permits, I will post the full statement of K. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 08:31:16 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: US Elections and theosophy Message-ID: <32833621.3A0C@earthlink.net> > But to try and associate "esoteric" or "theosophical" > with any political party is not only incorrect, it is intentionally > devisive. Quite right, however as one who followed this thread closely, I believe that that was not the focus of the discussion. The principles of theosophy/esotericism as they may manifest through gov't and the other institutions of society is a very important aspect, I believe, of our practical service. Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 9:32:39 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: In the world but not of it Message-ID: <199611081432.JAA19754@leo.vsla.edu> The issues raised by Mark and others about how to separate the message from the messenger, or the good from the bad, in the case of HPB has been resonating for a while inside me without any clear direction-- just bouncing around. One good thing about the Crews article is that it made me ask myself if I make too many excuses for her, avoid facing harsh implications and so on. It is a noteworthy change after starting to take melatonin regularly at bedtime that I often awaken with some "message" about a problem or issue that has been lurking for a while. This especially seems to occur if meditation preceded sleep the night before. This morning was one of those times, and the thought upon awakening was "the problem with HPB is that she failed to be `in the world but not of it.'" (Hardly something F. Crews would accept!) In her 1872 letter to the Third Section Director (Russian spy agency head) she wrote: "I must confess that three-quarters of the time the spirits spoke and answered in my words and out of my considerations, for the success of my own plans. Rarely, very rarely, did I fail, by means of this little trap, to discover people's hopes, plans and secrets...I have played every role, I am able to represent myself as any person you may wish." This may be immediate reason to dismiss the letter as a forgery, for some Theosophists. But if it is genuine, it seems to point to a crucial character flaw indeed. Deceptiveness alone is not as problematic as when combined with manipulation and self-seeking. Even if we admit that HPB was not acting simply on her own agenda, but on one developed with the advice and guidance of many others-- recognized as spiritual leaders in a number of traditions perhaps-- there is still something here that doesn't measure up to what most of us expect from a spiritual teacher. There's a kind of partisanship, a willingness to use people, and a love of intrigue for its own sake that bothers me more than simple deception. This may explain why Edgar Cayce feels so much better to me as a research topic, a mentor, a founder of an organization to which I belong. Although he certainly lacked HPB's mental brilliance, global perspective, and cultural sophistication, he also lacked her worst qualities. No one, even his greatest critics like James Randi, has ever credibly questioned his integrity. He doesn't seem to have been moved by worldly motives, by partisanship, by the desire for fame, and so on. I think, when I look within, that we do have a real need to believe that somewhere there are spiritual teachers who are sincerely altruistic, who are universal in their sympathies, who really love humanity. That doesn't mean we need them to be inerrant in factual matters (Cayce would be in a heap of trouble on that score) or morally immaculate. But they do have to reflect the highest within ourselves, and not the combative kama-manas. Toward the end of her life I think HPB got to that point. But there were so many missteps, so much partisanship and manipulation and deception along the way, that her legacy is decidedly mixed. If the Theosophical Society today is marked by partisanship, secrecy, manipulation, and deception, perhaps we should look to its primary source rather than assuming that the corruption came in somewhere down the line. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:11:52 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Koot Hoomi Unveiled Message-ID: <961108101151_1081634691@emout14.mail.aol.com> Alan, Won't the old Koot catch cold? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:40:07 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Checkout the new WWW homepage on Madame Blavatsky Message-ID: <199611081640.JAA23263@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Students of Theosophy, please check out the new WWW homepage on Madame Blavatsky. It's URL address is: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/ [See important announcement at end of this posting.] THE BLAVATSKY FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1844 Tucson, Arizona 85702, USA A non-profit Information Center dedicated to the dissemination of information on the life, writings and teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), Russian-born Occultist and co-founder of The Theosophical Society, demonstrated psychic powers of a startling nature and claimed personal contact with highly developed Masters living in Tibet and India. A well-versed student of metaphysical and esoteric lore, she promoted a greater Western knowledge of Eastern religions, philosophies and mythologies. Madame Blavatsky's major works (Isis Unveiled, The Secret Doctrine, The Key to Theosophy, and The Voice of the Silence) are considered classics in occult and Theosophical literature. TABLE OF CONTENTS >From Long Sealed Ancient Fountains: An Introduction to Theosophy Some Quotations from H.P.B. and Her Masters Electronic Versions of H.P. Blavatsky's Writings A Core Library of Suggested Reading Need More Information? Theosophical Links [This section incomplete and still under construction.] Announcement! If you have written or have a desire to write something on Madame Blavatsky, her life, writings or teachings and want to share it with the WWW audience, The Blavatsky Foundation is planning to have a new section on its home page devoted to such writings by present day students. Here is your chance to SHARE your insights and discoveries with other students and inquirers. In time, we hope that this section will grow into a minilibrary of information on Blavatsky and her Theosophical teachings. Please contact us at blafoun@azstarnet.com about your article or essay and we will arrange for it to be posted in the near future. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 13:54:41 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Helping the World Message-ID: <3283AC20.A90@earthlink.net> Hi, Thanks Liesel and MKR for your kind words of welcome. By the way, Art House actually means a house full of artists. To confuse you even more, maybe there will be more voices coming from Art House. Thanks for being tolerant of us newbees, we don't mean any trouble. I just printed only a few of the past theos-l and TI-L conversations. The stack looks like an encyclopaedia. Having first come into the conversation when it's in the middle of heated debates and demands for apologies, I came away saying, *Those hoity toity educated philosophists. Sometimes I prefer Spam over Pate. What is a true Theosophist, anyway? How many Theosophists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?* However, after scanning past conversations, the list as a whole is pretty good-natured. I agree, though, that there has to be times when everyone should be able to have their doubts answered. If one cannot even tolerate dissenting thoughts within this list, how can one even deal with the world? I saw in the stack a list of the composition of the world's races, education, etc., and just recently read the TI-L brainstorming from Murray S. regarding welcoming newbees. I myself came from a country where most people do not have the luxury or the resources that enables them to even study various philosophies. People's knowledge of religion or philosophy were mostly based on rituals performed by their elders, either Christian, Buddhist or combination of the two. Welcoming newbees is only a tiny fraction of the problem of spreading theosophical ideas and intentions. As theosophists, how do you intend to spread the ideas to those who cannot read (I myself have to read these books with dictionary in one hand and book in the other), and the younger (and older) generation whose main interests are trend of the moment? Should you form churchlike environments as the Christians have and aggressively convert others (This has caused some resentment in me toward Christians' history in my birth country. This also may cause the general population to worry about cults, although Christianity was once considered a cult.)? Is just meditating and spreading the white light good enough? For all the study and references to theosophical writings and history, I think the main object of theosophy is to spread compassion in the world, everything else is a moot point. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:36:36 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Utility of Theosophy Message-ID: In message , kymsmith@micron.net writes >Not all of us are >content with discussions about the technical side of theosophy - some of us >want to discuss how theosophy can be put to work, utilized, unfolded. We >need both the "techies" and the "non-techies" in order to have the merging >of the finest ideas, facts, and opinions. > >I don't believe the "unfolding of the dialectic" is only according to some >divinely driven, unchangeable clock. We can bring forth a better future >right now - we don't just have to sit back and wait around until some >butt-kicker from "above" has to be sent down to get things moving. I second the motion. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:44:00 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Some brief comments on Robert Gilbert's Introduction to Arthur Lillie's Pamphlet Message-ID: In message <199611072157.OAA15464@mailhost.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >Gilbert writes: >>Arthur Lillie's forgotten pamphlet of 1883 >>deserves to be read and studied with care. > >Actually the pamphlet was written and published in 1884. Dear Caldwell, Correct. This is evident from the text, and "Gilbert" acknowledges it as a typo. What is your point here? Bain --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:41:35 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Koot Hoomi Unveiled Message-ID: In message <961108101151_1081634691@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Won't the old Koot catch cold? > >Chuck the Heretic Only a very bad pun. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 23:18:18 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Some brief comments Message-ID: In message <199611072157.OAA15464@mailhost.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes > >Robert Gilbert writes: > >> the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin >>of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?, >>by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has yet to be rationally >>rebutted. > >In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally rebutted in >a series of 12 articles or so by Dr. H.N. Stokes. I cannot help but note from your bibliography that a very large number of your citations are from very obviously "theosophical establishment" sources. I also note from your web site notice that you are looking explicitly for PRO-HPB material. What is clear from your list is that the controvery was long-lived, and is still far from dead so far as historical research is concerned. It will probably remain so, because people will continue to take up the theosophical position on its own statement, "There is no Religion Higher than Truth." I could post (and have been offered) a great many quotes - not just citations - concerning this argument, but doubt this would be of much value. What I *would* be interested to know is how Kiddle's suspicion is to be rebutted when it is clear from the evidence as he presents it that his own lecture was given *before* the date given by Sinnet for the receipt of the Letter in question and *before* the date of the "Occult World" item. I should imagine this show will run and run and run. The reason I offer is that what has sadly become the remnant of a once-great Society has become for all too many of its adherents a "Religion of the Book" complete with its own version of "Saints" and "Messiahs." Perhaps the most important offering given to us in the Mahatma Letters is not to take anything they tell us as "gospel" simply because they say it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:29:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Helping the World Message-ID: <7dcI0KA$B9gyEwG$@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <3283AC20.A90@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >For all the study and references to theosophical writings and history, I >think the main object of theosophy is to spread compassion in the world, >everything else is a moot point. Sometimes I think wryly that we could spread compassion in the world a little easier if we left out the theosophy ... just a passing thought. No big deal. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:28:05 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Common Sense Message-ID: <17+rdKA1P7gyEwkL@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <32829978.DE2@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >Art House wrote: >> >> Who knows what common sense is? Is there even such a thing? Common >> sense changes with time and situation. > > Just an aside. John Algeo, who, among other things, is a noted >etymologist, recently mentioned that "common sense" does not, as one >might think, derive from sense that is common among people, but from the >concept of being able to take the evidence from all 5 senses in common, >and properly coordinate the information. > > Bart Lidofsky While John Algeo is almost certainly correct, I doubt if many people use the term in its defined etymoligical manner. I suspect that most - myself included - use it as a rough and ready way of describing what *is* perceived as "sense that is common among ... people." Not all people, but certainly those who belong, again in a rough and ready way, to a common peer group. If this is so, then in due course, the dictionaries and etymolical studies will need to take into account the vernacular use of the term. I subscribe to "Demon Internet" in order to use this service, and as someone recently pointed out, the word "demon" has a greek origin which relates to a disembodied spirit, not necessarily inimical to anyone. This is not the popular use of the term, and so in English usage the word means an evil spirit. Language changes. Seem to think I mentioned that once or twice before .. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 20:26:27 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Jokes Message-ID: <961108202626_1814481820@emout12.mail.aol.com> I would have laughed but my girlfriend was complaining that her chains were too tight again. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Nov 96 21:48:55 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: The Power of Gestrues - Mudras Comin at Ya Message-ID: <961109024854_74024.3352_BHT107-1@CompuServe.COM> It seems that everyone is endowed with a certain unalienable need to gesture. Could President CLinton run for office withour beguiling us with his body language? Dole was handicapped with his war injury, but he too never failed to flail like a fish, snake, duck, rat etc. I for one am tired of people pointing fingers and telling lies. If you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you are a duck! But what is wrong with that? I wish Neuro-linguistic programming, deaf sign language and Oprah WInfrey et all didn't all come out of the same Actor's Studio enfer red. I get dizzy trying to decipher a plethora of pretentious pointillisms to no real point. I bet there is some way to get this schmooze appeal on the internet. Can you say, ICON -no - graphy. Check out those little pictures. There a stereotypical guides around the super-highway of your mind. Oy vey, batman, it's a hard knock life when you are alway trying to dodge the implications of really interesting contours not to mention the Chiaroscuro. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Nov 96 22:36:40 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Core Spirit in Colon? - From the Crust to the Crown through the Heart Message-ID: <961109033640_74024.3352_BHT129-2@CompuServe.COM> What is all this new age obsession with a really clean colon? I know cleanliness is next to Godliness, but frankly I don't want to have my insides washed on the physical plane. I know we have to bring the outside in and inside out but let's not go to far with all of this. What possbile benefit to the cancer patient could such things as : magnetics, colonics, dark field micorbiology, brain virus parasites, digestive enzyme programs, be? Am I the last to know? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Nov 96 22:36:13 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: If your right eye offends thee, pluck it out! Message-ID: <961109033612_74024.3352_BHT129-1@CompuServe.COM> And while we are one it, Blavatsky et al have always talked about the power of breath, sound and the difference between the right and left hand, nostril, ear, lung path. Why do we have two eyes? So we can see stereoscopically, in 3 dimenions with or without voyeristic intention. If you can see those Magic Eye pictures pop out at (or really in) you, you may realize that everything is not always the same eye for an eye so to speak. The eye of Horus had the power to cure and the evil eye is well know in those hoodoo countries. New advances in Eagle Eyewear can help uncover the truth that was always playing just on the surface. We are bipolar beings and the breakdown of the bicameral mind told of how Odysessus really heard the gods guide him homeward (very slowly, one might add). Perhaps one step backward is an eye spy forward in the evolution of consciousness. The eyes must separate and be rehealed on an astral level so as to speed the perception of reality in parallell possibilites. But eyes take on a sinister slant when his eye is single. Seeing double may be the only way to go, but the Mayans favored cross-eyed and made their young girls achieve the beauty of seeing the gods at close range. To be in the presence of divinity is a fearful thing, and cannot be looked upon directly. The Gorgons gaze is best observed in the reflection of the shield. The eye of Horus opens over or Within the pyramid to see the world of the Gods that control our every gesture, expression and intonation. Can you hear your modem warble and scream and sigh? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Nov 96 23:55:28 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Slam Dunks of Love - Kitty Litter Message-ID: <961109045527_74024.3352_BHT94-1@CompuServe.COM> The popular arts are veritable mind field of spirituality. One of my favorite dixiebilly tune goes: Well, it's all right and she's going strong We gotta get right back to where we started from. Love is cruel Love can be kind We gotta get right back to where we started from - Oh yeah You get hurt, by the little things she does You know she's only just begun Well, it's all right and she's coming strong We gotta get right back to where we started from. Hindu sages can see the dance of Shakit - SIva in these simple lines where the dark goddess Kali fed up with the fickle wickedness of man decides on Kremhild's revenge and that's putting it mildly. The only hope is to get back to the moment BEFORE the big bang when the manifest world was just a wind in the dreamy eyes of Vishnu's slumbering on the lotus serpent. The Kiss of The Cobra Women is a real Spider's Stratgem fit for a Hitchcockian denoument of the innocent man ever running through eon of incarnation and reincarnation. Always followed by the thought police of the religiously Righteous. Cary Grant, too, always protested his innocence, but he was the man who knew too much, but couldn't make it save his son from the kidnapper's cluthces. Doris Day sang Que Sera - Que Sera as a bogus interlude. So we pause for a look at all those little sweet nothings that mean so much in the great scheme of things. In fact, they seem to be the very fabric that holds society together. What would all those parted lips do if there were those little fingers to blow a kiss or slam dunk a breath in through the hoop dreamed. Kitty seems to have a lot of work in the litter. Animal training, like controlling the kids needs government survellance for abuse of "managed care". And while we are on that little cookie, NIGHTLINE had an expose that everything you say in confidence to your doctor and pschyological counsellors is interwoven in you insurance files so that anybody on the internet with an little hack and an handsaw can tell you your feelings better that you can get in touch with 911. But how could we get along without all this glorious serving the compu-max.com. I love it. You have too. Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 11:31:52 -0800 From: Mika Perala Subject: Re: In the world but not of it Message-ID: <3284DC28.4F06@dlc.fi> "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: < In her 1872 letter to the Third >Section Director (Russian spy agency head) she wrote: "I must >confess that three-quarters of the time the spirits spoke and >answered in my words and out of my considerations, for the >success of my own plans. Rarely, very rarely, did I fail, by >means of this little trap, to discover people's hopes, plans >and secrets...I have played every role, I am able to represent >myself as any person you may wish." This may be immediate >reason to dismiss the letter as a forgery, for some >Theosophists. But if it is genuine, it seems to point to a >crucial character flaw indeed. Deceptiveness alone is not as >problematic as when combined with manipulation and >self-seeking. Even if we admit that HPB was not acting simply >on her own agenda, but on one developed with the advice and >guidance of many others-- recognized as spiritual leaders in a >number of traditions perhaps-- there is still something here >that doesn't measure up to what most of us expect from a >spiritual teacher. There's a kind of partisanship, a >willingness to use people, and a love of intrigue for its own >sake that bothers me more than simple deception. You have got a point here. Once I visited a Krisna-movement meeting here in Helsinki and after listening to all that loud singing, chanting, monotonic music and smelling the incense I felt afterwards that this is something like being "brain-washed". It was somehow difficult to have my own thoughts after that. And my friend who was with me felt the same. I have later experienced something similar to that. It was when me and that same friend of mine were invited to summer cottage where some theosophists go every year. We had discussions of what is "real" theosophy and what is "real" theosophical work and why we should do it. Those theosophists were very strong personalities and afterwards me and my friend remembered the Krishna-movement and feelings we had and now we felt the same. It was like recruitment. It was manipulating. Now, I am not saying that this is "normal behaviour" among theosophists, it surely is not, but I remembered this when I read your quote about H.P.B. Same kind of attitude. And there is always something good in happenings like those too. At least I am now much stronger myself and not so easily manipulated. Hopefully I am also wiser not to manipulate myself. Mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 10:19:02 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: In the world but not of it Message-ID: On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Mika Perala wrote: > I have later experienced something similar to that. It was when me and > that same friend of mine were invited to summer cottage where some > theosophists go every year. We had discussions of what is "real" > theosophy and what is "real" theosophical work and why we should do it. > Those theosophists were very strong personalities and afterwards me and > my friend remembered the Krishna-movement and feelings we had and now we > felt the same. It was like recruitment. It was manipulating. > > Now, I am not saying that this is "normal behaviour" among theosophists, > it surely is not, but I remembered this when I read your quote about > H.P.B. Same kind of attitude. At least my numerous experiences with Theosophists in India and the US was different. I never felt such fundamentalism any time nor was there any direct or indirect attempt to manipulate. Occassionally there will be isolated cases of individuals who may have tried to coerce or try to recruit or manipulate. The reason why someone may act like that is very simple. They may have been brought up, prior to being exposed to Theosophy, in an environment where such pressure tactics are considered best in the best interests of the person directed at. Having operated in such a mode for a long time, it is very very difficult to make a 180 degree turn and adopt a totally free uncoersive attitude and approach.(They say you cannot teach an old dog new tricks). What such actions demonstrate is that they have not understood the fundamentals of Theo-Sophia, no matter how long they have been members nor how high a position they may be holding in the hierarchy of an organization. (Never get fooled by anyone's title, educational achievements nor anything that makes them feel different or superior to anyone else). What we can all do is just send some good thoughts to help them open up their eyes and help themselves to come out of (spiritual) blindness. > > And there is always something good in happenings like those too. At least > I am now much stronger myself and not so easily manipulated. Hopefully I > am also wiser not to manipulate myself. I am glad to see your comment. When you are able to stand "alone" - not isolated - with your own understanding and be alert to any overt or covert attempts to influence, none of these influencing techniques can affect you. My humble 2 cents worth. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:53:48 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Common Sense Message-ID: <961109115347_1948774725@emout01.mail.aol.com> Alan, The fascinating thing about common sense is that it is anything but common. You're lucky to be with Demon.co.. There is something about typing your message into the machine, having it put into a little packet to be carried by funny-looking little red devils with packets on their pitchforks to be carried all over the world, there to be picked up by mortals after typing in the appropriate conjurations that must be satisfying in the extreme. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 21:15:05 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Common Sense Message-ID: In message <961109115347_1948774725@emout01.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >The fascinating thing about common sense is that it is anything but common. >You're lucky to be with Demon.co.. There is something about typing your >message into the machine, having it put into a little packet to be carried by >funny-looking little red devils with packets on their pitchforks to be >carried all over the world, there to be picked up by mortals after typing in >the appropriate conjurations that must be satisfying in the extreme. > >Chuck the Heretic Indeed it is. I think. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:07:03 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Evaluating Theosophical history Message-ID: <9611092307.AA05500@toto.csustan.edu> AB >>> the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin >>>of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma >>>Letters?, by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has >>>yet to be rationally rebutted. DC >>In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally >>rebutted in a series of 12 articles or so by Dr. H.N. Stokes. AB >I cannot help but note from your bibliography that a very large >number of your citations are from very obviously "theosophical >establishment" sources. I also note from your web site notice >that you are looking explicitly for PRO-HPB material. JHE Putting aside the pros and cons of the Hare critique for a moment, I think Alan's comment immediately above suggests a deeper issue that I feel needs attention: Are we to assume that "PRO-HPB material" is necessarily any more or less scholarly or accurate than ANTI-HPB material, or even NEUTRAL-HPB material? If we are to dismiss PRO-HPB material as biased, then ANTI-HPB material must also have a bias. So called NEUTRAL-HPB material may also have hidden biases, or may be a product of poor scholastic methodology--even when it is published by an academic press. To elaborate: Dr. Bruce Campbell's work ANCIENT WISDOM REVIVED was published by the University of California Press--one of the most reputable academic presses in the world. It is the work of choice for other academic researchers who are looking for a secondary source to quote concerning Theosophy or HPB. Yet, in my casual reading I found the book riddled with errors of fact. It turns out that I wasn't the only person to feel this way. Dr. Gregory Tillett wrote in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY: ANCIENT WISDOM REVIVED, is marred by numerous errors of basic fact suggesting both shoddy methodology and a failure to use basic primary resources, misunderstandings and misinterpretations. In fourteen pages I could identify (without any particular effort) more than thirty errors of fact. (April 1989). So much for the superiority of academic works as providers of accurate information. On the other hand, we have friendly biographies that are condemned as "hagiography," such as Cranston's recent biography. Her book was given this label, not because the information is necessarily inaccurate, but because the Cranston was selective and avoided the more controversial issues concerning HPB's life. So concerning accuracy of information, Cranston's book may be superior to Campbell's. But in terms of discussing controversial subjects, Campbell's book is the better by default. These two books became just what their author's wished them to be. Cranston's intention was to write a comprehensive friendly biography showing HPB's influence on our thinking in this century, and she accomplished this. Campbell's intention, as he admitted to the archivists at the Theosophical Library at Pasadena, was to prove what he already believed before he began the book: that all phenomena is fraudulent, and the Masters don't exist. He accomplished this. Are their respective "proofs" the last word? No. Returning to the Hare material: What did the Hare brothers believe before they began their expose? Did they use good methodology in their analysis? How can we tell? Unless we know as much about the subject as the author, we are at a great disadvantage. Certainly Campbell's editors were unable to detect the errors in ANCIENT WISDOM, because they know comparatively little about the subject. Do we know enough about the Mahatma letters and their production to make a judgement on the accuracy of the arguments of the Hare brothers, H.N. Stokes, Beatrice Hastings and others who have joined in this controversy? When we make an evaluation of a work, do we check the references and follow the research methodology of the writer? Unless readers are very motivated, and have access to the same primary resources (which is very unlikely), they are in no position to judge the methodology of the writer; and therefore in no position to make any judgement except to determine which writer put forth an argument that was most appealing. This is a very subjective way to measure the merits of a work. I recently experienced a blatant example of this kind of subjectivity at a theosophical gathering. A woman once informed me that she was present at Adyar and therefore had personal knowledge that Tillett's book on Leadbeater was based entirely upon "second hand gossip" that he heard from Belfour Clarke. A casual glance at the citations at the end of the book clearly shows that even if the author accepted Balfour Clarke's views, they were extensively backed up by citations from primary sources. Since I also have access and am familiar with the same source material, I was able to be satisfied that he actually drew from the material. But what about the discussions with Belfour Clarke my friend over heard? Certainly, one step in scholarly research is to gather oral history whenever possible. Obviously Tillett was doing this. In summary of my points: A casual reader is not in a very good position to judge the reliability of a book, unless the reader is aware of the motivations of the writer and is familiar with the same documents researched in the book. However, there are a few things that a casual reader can do that may help to evaluate and determine if the material is questionable: 1. Is the writer exploring an issue are trying to prove a point? 2. Does the writer support his arguments with source references (other biographies, or other opinions are secondary sources. Primary sources are the documents closest to the issue. An example, concerning the 1906 Leadbeater issue: a primary document is CWL's actual testimony to Olcott's committee. A secondary source are the opinions of his friends and supporters.) 3. Does the writer deal with the controversial issues? Cranston's biography is criticized for not doing this. 4. Does the writer acknowledge, present and explore the numerous points of view concerning an issue? JHE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 96 17:14 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Utility of Theosophy Message-ID: MKRamadoss wrote: > > It has been the policy of the Theosophical Society as an >organization keeping out of politics from day one. This policy has served >the organization for over a century and will continue to do so. I've never advocated that the Theosophical Society get involved in politics. That would be absurd - the Society must be open and in service to all - politics, among other things, would only cause disharmony; somehow that would imply that if one didn't agree with TS's political choices, they were not 'theosophists.' > So all of us who have any interest and inclination to participate >in Politics is most welcome to do so. Certainly. >I wish to see Senators and >Representatives and Governors with Theosophical background. In these days >when *wedge* issues are used to win elections and make make themselves >popular, a good dose of Theosophy will go a long way in *really* working >for the common good. Yes! a good dose of Theosophy would go a long way in "really" working for the common good. But what is a good dose of Theosophy? How would a representative or governor with a Theosophical background differ from the others? What makes a T/theosophist any different from anybody else? > IMHO it will be appropriate and do a lot of good if the politics >discussions are done in one of the usenet groups on this subject. Go to a usenet? Is there a usenet out there which discusses how theosophy, current events, moral dilemma's, and helping humanity are interrelated? What's the name/address of it? HPB wrote about abortion, charity, suicide; Besant wrote about women's rights. They didn't seem to think "humanity's issues" and theosophy are not connected. A regular "general subject" usenet isn't going to address the fundamental principles of theosophy. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:21:06 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Upload Message-ID: The file Liesel.zip is a small archive of interesting e-mail collected together by TI member Liesel Deutsch, and may be accessed from http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/wisdom/liesel/ where there are four other text files from Liesel's own interesting history. Enjoy! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:10:44 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Evaluating Theosophical history Message-ID: In message <9611092307.AA05500@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes > >AB >>>> the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin >>>>of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma >>>>Letters?, by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has >>>>yet to be rationally rebutted. This is a quote from R.A.Gilbert's Preface to "Kooy Hoomi Unveiled" and not my comment - I merely posted it. Just for the record. AB. Because I post a quotation, it does not follow that I necessarily support it 100% - a point which many fail to appreciate (but not JHE, BTW!). > >DC >>>In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally >>>rebutted in a series of 12 articles or so by Dr. H.N. Stokes. > >AB >>I cannot help but note from your bibliography that a very large >>number of your citations are from very obviously "theosophical >>establishment" sources. I also note from your web site notice >>that you are looking explicitly for PRO-HPB material. > >JHE >Putting aside the pros and cons of the Hare critique for a >moment, I think Alan's comment immediately above suggests a >deeper issue that I feel needs attention: Are we to assume that >"PRO-HPB material" is necessarily any more or less scholarly or >accurate than ANTI-HPB material, or even NEUTRAL-HPB material? >If we are to dismiss PRO-HPB material as biased, then ANTI-HPB >material must also have a bias. So called NEUTRAL-HPB material >may also have hidden biases, or may be a product of poor >scholastic methodology--even when it is published by an academic >press. Again, I am not familiar with the details of the Hare critique. Indeed, this discussion arose because I asked a question or two and no one on the list seemed able to offer any answers. Bob Gilbert (and Arthur Lille!) offered some, and I posted them. As to their merits, I am not qualified to judge. My remarks concerning the nature of Dan Caldwell's references were not intended to suggest anything more than a noticable or seeming lack of balance in them. OTOH, maybe the Pro-HPB material was more prolific. So, your para above re biases is of course relevant to a serious historical study. It seems to me from your post, though, that such serious and/or academic studies that have already been made may not have resolved the conflict. Serves me right for seeking truth. Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 22:00:47 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Utility of Theosophy Message-ID: On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > I've never advocated that the Theosophical Society get involved in politics. > That would be absurd - the Society must be open and in service to all - > politics, among other things, would only cause disharmony; somehow that > would imply that if one didn't agree with TS's political choices, they were > not 'theosophists.' I posted my comment for the benefit of anyone who may not be aware of the historical matters relating to Theosophy and Theosophists. > > Yes! a good dose of Theosophy would go a long way in "really" working for > the common good. But what is a good dose of Theosophy? How would a > representative or governor with a Theosophical background differ from the > others? What makes a T/theosophist any different from anybody else? I meant a good understanding of the fundamental objective of Theosophy. One of the most unique quality I have seen in anyone exposed to Theosophy and are affected by it is they are more honest and humanitarian and less selfish. I think these factors to a lesser or greater amount will definitely help a politician to work on issues that unify all segements of the population and work on issues that help those who are to be protected and helped, rather than those issues which will votes. This does not mean that everybody politician out there does not have any of these qualities. But the chances are a Theosophical politician is likely to have more of it! > > IMHO it will be appropriate and do a lot of good if the politics > >discussions are done in one of the usenet groups on this subject. There is a usenet group on Theosophy. Have you had a chance to look at it. There is not much of a traffic there now. It is time to stir up! > > Go to a usenet? Is there a usenet out there which discusses how theosophy, > current events, moral dilemma's, and helping humanity are interrelated? > What's the name/address of it? HPB wrote about abortion, charity, suicide; > Besant wrote about women's rights. They didn't seem to think "humanity's > issues" and theosophy are not connected. A regular "general subject" usenet > isn't going to address the fundamental principles of theosophy. > Both Blavatsky and Besant did think humanity issues all the time. When the application of Theosophy came up, they did it in their individual capacities. For example it was during Blavatsky's time that Olcott started the first school for untouchables - the poor people in the slums. Blavatsky also worked hard in speaking against child marriages in India. Beasant was very instrumental in starting a chain of schools and colleges some of which to encourge parents to educated their daughters, because most of them used to be married off when they were still in school and then dropped out. This is only for information. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 96 23:19 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: If your right eye offends thee, pluck it out! Message-ID: Keith encodes: >Can you hear your modem warble and scream and sigh? Are you one of those Mahatma fellas? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 96 23:26 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Helping the World Message-ID: Alan writes: > >Sometimes I think wryly that we could spread compassion in the world a >little easier if we left out the theosophy ... just a passing thought. >No big deal. Duh! :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:40:41 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Information Viruses Message-ID: <3285DB58.6C66@earthlink.net> A Good Day Everyone! On Theos-L Digest 690, Keith Price wrote: >I have become obsessed again with the power of images to connect and relate various levels of spirit into matter. > Which brought my mind to an interesting article on William Burroughs (of the Beatnik movement), in Art in America, November 1996, Burroughs's Virology by David Joselit. *In 1973, Burroughs wrote: **I advance the theory that in the electronic revolution a virus is a very small unit of word and image.** Genetic science has since borne out Burroughs's trope: viruses are information. But his use of the term is more complex than a simple application of information theory to medicine. For him, the virus is both a form of imposing control-the viral intruder takes over the biological systems of its host-as well as, ultimately, an agent of chaotic loss of control: the success of the virus may lead to its own failure if the imperative to reproduce causes the death of the organism it invades. It is precisely such a dynamic of excess and implosion, of plenitude and apocalytic collapse, which underlies Burroughs's practice of photography. He operates on the assumption that once an image is put into circulation it is impossible to anticipate or control its path: the image may be cropped, reproduced or reframed at will in order to substantiate any number of textual claims.* This brings up a topic that I'd like some input on: The problems and advantages of the usage and spreading of information in society today (especially with the creation of more and more powerful methods of communication) because I do believe that information is like a virus that replicates logarhithmically. Depending on the type of virus, the organism (society) can die. In the second paragraph, it's also interesting that Burroughs used the metaphor of having no control of an image once it's been put into circulation (like some Theosophical writings). If no one can think of anything to say, I just thought this was an interesting statement to share. Thanks. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:43:04 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Gender Language Message-ID: <3285DBE7.6A67@earthlink.net> Excuse me if I seem to be dragging up the past, but I just recently read some of the past Theos-L. Regarding gender-neutral language, whether it is an important point, and how critical it is in helping TS get with the times, I say that it is an important factor in attracting the younger generation to the group, egotism or not. I grew up when the noise of the Women's movement have died down, and (because of their work) it became normal to see phrases s/he and his/her. Growing up sensitive to gender neutral phrases, my first impression of the words *The White Brotherhood* was of the Ku Klux Klan. Eldon's quote of *brotherhood* meaning *...a sangha or mutual support of a positive, masculine...* makes me pause. Besides the Ku Klux Klan, there are many groups using the brotherhood meaning for malice, the Neo-Nazis, the Skinheads, etc. Because of all those references (including the *positive, masculine* brotherhood of the corporate world), I have a difficult time accepting the meaning of brotherhood to include women. Nowadays, there are more women in the work force than not and women do not have to give out a masculine image to compete in the men's world. Women can wear makeup, shave their legs, and run a corporation. IMO, women also no longer need to have masculine terms apply to them just because that was the tradition. I think that others of my generation and younger will also feel the same way. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:44:26 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Abortion Again Message-ID: <3285DC39.5444@earthlink.net> Me (or this ego that is not the real me), again. On the abortion issue, my question is how much should society intrude on the woman's right to choose? Would it be karmically bad for society to allow women to abort whenever they choose? I knew some women who use abortion as a birth control device. Or should society just let each woman deal with her own karma? And what is the karmic influence on the partner who impregnated her? There is some point when society has an obligation to not allow individuals to harm themselves. I do agree that decision should be made case by case. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:45:54 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Solidarity Message-ID: <3285DC91.693F@earthlink.net> Thanks, Kym, for your kind response to my offense. *You are my kind of Theosophist.* I agree with you regarding the need for solidarity. It is nice that people can be a bit devilish sometimes without being hurtful. I once belonged to a group that was all saccharine and hugs, the soulful eye contact, the whole bit. That caused me to want to throw out some bawdy jokes and dance to rock-n-roll. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:47:01 -0800 From: Art House Subject: The P Word Message-ID: <3285DCD3.1CD@earthlink.net> Regarding politics and TS. I can see why it is necessary for the Society to stay out of politics. The TS standing for a certain political group can create factionalism (Already problems with philosophy? Wait until you throw in politics!). However, I think it is safe to discuss politics within this list and leave it up as personal opinions. We should be able to discuss anything. Okay, Me (or not really me) go now. Bye! TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 10:11:07 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Core Spirit in Colon? - From the Crust to the Crown through the Heart Message-ID: <961110101106_1316703887@emout07.mail.aol.com> It's projection. Guess what the folks who worry about such things are full of. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 12:05:18 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Apology Message-ID: <3286357D.4C72@earthlink.net> Gertrude wrote: >All of this vitopourous sniping has got to end... Hi Gertrude, I apologize for my part in this. I hope you are doing well. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 96 15:11 MST From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 723 Message-ID: Keith writes: >If you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you are a duck! But what is wrong with that? Yes! what is wrong with that?! >What is all this new age obsession with a really clean colon? I know >cleanliness is next to Godliness, but frankly I don't want to have my insides >washed on the physical plane. I know we have to bring the outside in and inside >out but let's not go to far with all of this. What possbile benefit to the >cancer patient could such things as : magnetics, colonics, dark field >micorbiology, brain virus parasites, digestive enzyme programs, be? Am I the >last to know? Aren't we always?! >New advances in Eagle Eyewear can help uncover the truth that >was always playing just on the surface. Hope they hurry. I need all the help I can get. >To be in the presence of divinity is a fearful thing, and cannot be looked upon >directly. Yes. Seems somehow not fair, though. >Doris Day sang Que Sera - Que Sera as a bogus interlude. To roll over and take it, or not to roll over and take it - such is the question. >So we pause for a look at all those little sweet nothings that mean so much in >the great scheme of things. In fact, they seem to be the very fabric that holds >society together. I fear, or do I fear? that is so. >But how could we get along without all this glorious serving the compu-max.com. >I love it. You have too. I do. Thank you :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:32:30 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Information Virus Message-ID: <3286741B.2A35@earthlink.net> Interesting article in the *distorted* news media. From an article in the San Francisco Examiner-Salinger stung by TWA tip on Net (regarding ABC newsman Pierre Salinger's claim that he located a document that reported the U.S. Navy being responsible for the July 17 explosion of TWA Flight 800): *America is awash in a growing and often disruptive avalanche of false information that takes on a life of its own in the electronic ether of the Internet, talk radio and voice mail until it becomes impervious to denial and debunking. **There is a very strong strain of media populism because of the Internet in today's society, and people grasp for these false stories because they think the Internet can be trusted more than can the major institutions of America,** said Bernard Beck, associate professor of sociology at Northwestern University.*...*The social scientist noted that before Salinger's embarrassing Internet interlude, the most recent outbreak of the phenomenon had been the widespread belief, particularly among African Americans, that the San Jose Mercury News had broken a story that proved that the CIA had been involved in selling crack cocaine in California inner-city neighborhoods as part of its efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels in the early 1980s.*...*The series was then copied by a variety of political activists and widely reprinted on the Internet, replete with claims that it was the proof of the long-held suspicions among many people of government participation in inner-city drug sales.* TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Nov 96 19:00:40 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: THEOS-L digest 723 Message-ID: <961111000039_74024.3352_BHT232-2@CompuServe.COM> Once I visited a Krisna-movement meeting here in Helsinki and after listening to all that loud singing, chanting, monotonic music and smelling the incense I felt afterwards that this is something like being "brain-washed". It was somehow difficult to have my own thoughts after that. And my friend who was with me felt the same. MIKA Keith: I visited our very impressive and new Krishna Consciousness temple, about 2 mile from my house. First they used an abandoned protestant church and then built and modern fellowship hall complete with curried covered dish suppers. You know how a Protestant gets into heaven? Answer: I don't know, but he has to bring a covered dish :) Well, from the looks of it, there is alot of hanky panky and third eye opening going on around there in the name of Krishna, but to the benefit of some, couldn't you have guessed it, fat raisin and milk Hindic cake, no fruit! He definitely goes for the women first! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Nov 96 19:00:36 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: THEOS-L digest 723 Message-ID: <961111000035_74024.3352_BHT232-1@CompuServe.COM> AB >>> the most devastating attack upon the supernatural origin >>>of both the letters and their authors is Who Wrote the Mahatma >>>Letters?, by H.E. & W.L. Hare (1936) - a critique which has >>>yet to be rationally rebutted. DC >>In my opinion, this book by the Hare brothers was rationally >>rebutted in a series of 12 articles or so by Dr. H.N. Stokes. AB >I cannot help but note from your bibliography that a very large >number of your citations are from very obviously "theosophical >establishment" sources. I also note from your web site notice >that you are looking explicitly for PRO-HPB material Keith: Has anyone done an "occult" analysis of the Mahatma Letters. I mean compared then to the writings of Plato, Plotinus (through Porphry), Ammonus Seca, Gautama (transmitted through disciples, of course), Jesus (quoted of course), and other sages, revered teachers and MASTERS. How do the crack up? Has anyone done a tranlittereration or numerological analysis. Come on, let's have it. I can't believe all you inititiates AEka gnostics haven't put the oldcrystal ball to work on the BIG - SPIRIT"S missives and epistles not to mention belle lettres. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Nov 96 02:52:52 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Dis--Information - If I'm lieing, I'm dieing Message-ID: <961111075251_74024.3352_BHT39-1@CompuServe.COM> *In 1973, Burroughs wrote: **I advance the theory that in the electronic revolution a virus is a very small unit of word and image.** Genetic science has since borne out Burroughs's trope: viruses are information. But his use of the term is more complex than a simple application of information theory to medicine. For him, the virus is both a form of imposing control-the viral intruder takes over the biological systems of its host-as well as, ultimately, an agent of chaotic loss of control: the success of the virus may lead to its own failure if the imperative to reproduce causes the death of the organism it invades. It is precisely such a dynamic of excess and implosion, of plenitude and apocalytic collapse, which underlies Burroughs's practice of photography. He operates on the assumption that once an image is put into circulation it is impossible to anticipate or control its path: the image may be cropped, reproduced or reframed at will in order to substantiate any number of textual claims.* This brings up a topic that I'd like some input on: The problems and advantages of the usage and spreading of information in society today (especially with the creation of more and more powerful methods of communication) because I do believe that information is like a virus that replicates logarhithmically. Depending on the type of virus, the organism (society) can die. In the second paragraph, it's also interesting that Burroughs used the metaphor of having no control of an image once it's been put into circulation (like some Theosophical writings). TTT _______________-- Keith: Very interesting post! We seem to be on the same track as many others who see and perhaps fear, the idea that a little entropy, lie, virus, meme, negative art, can bring down a whole negentropic, truthful, healthy, informative, spiritual system whether it be an individual, society, organization, government, economy or TV sitcom. Frankly I never could follow Burroughs, but now I seem to have adopted much of his style. His hipster beat thinking seems to infect our discourse at the end of this era. Scholastic pedantry with copious footnotes is not the style that can capture even the most scholarly. Does the Pope quote Aristotle or Duns Scotus, no he goes for Kierkegaard like the rest of it with a sideways glance to Warholesque tomfoolery. It seems that the only way to fight fire is with fire. The infection, I hope, may be the cure in some strange way. I spent the weekend at a conference called; AIDS, Medicince and Miracles. The new conscensus seems that the cure for AIDS may not come in a test tube or new government program, but come from -- are you sitting down? ---- love (I can barely type the word). It seems that if one respects oneself and others the disease will stop spreading and that many cases on long term survival and spontaneous type remissions are brought more by healthy lifestyle and relationships. Burroughs was a creep! His books and life stink! But it seemed a necessary bringing to light of the very darkest elements of our psyche that appears in metaphorical forms in art and discource and in the body as disease and in the mind as anxiety, fear, guilt and shame. TO GET BACK TO THEOSOPHY, HPB had a lot to say about Karma as giving us all exactly what we deserve and one might add asked for in the first place. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Nov 96 03:20:30 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Chaotic Dreams Restructure the Real Message-ID: <961111082029_74024.3352_BHT113-1@CompuServe.COM> Murray Hope writing our of England for Aquarian Press in PRACTICAL CELTIC MAGIC correlates dreams with chaos and by further analogy I would suggest the following possible correspondes; Chaos - Dreams - Deep Archetypal UnConscious Mind - Plutonian Underworld - Hades - Qlippoth - Pingala - Left Hand Path - Music - Dionysian - Ecstatic - Destructive Restructuring - Rebirthing I think this may have application to TTT's thoughts about Burroughs et al qua revolutionary artisticAIDS virus. The good news is that if Chaos is the realm of dreams it really does have a positive influence in the very long run, yet the sadness remains that a little chaos from Pandora's box goes a long way to overturn a lot of REAL - Conscious,- Solar - Heavenly - Sephirothic - Ida - Right hand path - Mathmatics - Apollonian - Serene - Constructive - Sustaining - Homoestatic energies. Quelle suprise, quelle big deal! There is always Hope, right Murray, Jerry S. and that loquacious limey Alan B. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Nov 96 11:19:18 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: ISIS as Holy SPIRIT? - Unveiled or Get some clothes girl! Message-ID: <961111161917_74024.3352_BHT95-1@CompuServe.COM> Excerpt fro Abufafia circa 1200 a.d.: Five rungs of the Kabbalah are Nepesch, Ruach, Neshamah, Chaya and Yechida. A candle will give you an idea . THe Nephesch is the vital soul - the wick and candle together. In the Ruach we gooutside the ego. The Neshamah is the past and future. The HOLY SPIRIT is connected not only within the individual, but within others and to other worlds of the past and future - the Gog in exile of the Ruach Ha kodesh. So we are in exil, so is Shekhinah, the Spirit of GOd. THe Shekihinah comes to dwell in the soul of the virtuous man. as the exiled, but very Presence of God. The 22 letters and 32 paths create a science for a new state of consciousness called Sephiroth. The Holy Spirit, Shekinah, is always in us ready to teach to help us become a scholar, an expert, one adept, one initiated, one of gnosis. THe experience of revelation can be experienced here and now. in prayer and meditation. When the inner warmth found in the heart reaches the hand - true discourse and art can be expressed. THe King can speak through his vessel the Queen or vital soul. What could be a more beautiful state than being in love - the soul in love with God. The Shekinah united with the Crown from the Kindgom See yourself as the divine tree. Harmonize the ten emanations to express the divinity on earth. In the dark night of the soul one returns a child through chaos to a renewing return of the soul in the joy of the morning. The oneness reminds me of my comfort that body, mind and soul are one. So I am haapy this morning. Shall I say Iam joyous? I am the knowledge of the joy of the Shekinah, the God within me. So I great you and say Shalom. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:56:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Chaotic Dreams Restructure the Real Message-ID: In message <961111082029_74024.3352_BHT113-1@CompuServe.COM>, joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> writes >There is always Hope, right Murray, Jerry S. and that loquacious limey Alan B. Loquacious Limeys Unite! Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:59:08 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: FYI: Gathering info from the Krishnamurti Foundation of India (fwd) Message-ID: Hi Here is some information for those Theosophists interested in Krishnamurti Teachings. Vasanta Vihar is across the river from TS International Headquarters in Adyar, Madras, India. MKRamadoss > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:37:57 +0100 > From: Dirk Lutzebaeck > Subject: FYI: Gathering info from the Krishnamurti Foundation of India > From: Viswanath_Yegnanarayanan@es.xerox.com (Yegnanarayanan,Viswanath) > Subject: KFI Gathering Info There will be a three day gathering at Vasanta Vihar, Madras between January 25-27, 97. Contact KFI for further information. - --Viswanath From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:25:01 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: Theosophy Homepages Message-ID: <3288183D.528D@eden.com> Hi You may want to visit Rudy's home page at http://www.garlic.com/~rdon. He has good links to other Theosophical Organizations. There is a link to Brazil TS and in it is a segment with audio. Those with Netscape with audio player can listen in even though the recording is not in English. It just goes to show some of the possibilities in Internet homepages. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:58:53 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Dis--Information-Lying/Dying Message-ID: <3288586B.740F@earthlink.net> Howdy Folks, Keith Wrote: > Frankly I never could follow Burroughs, but now I seem to have adopted >much of his style. His hipster beat thinking seems to infect our discourse >at the end of this era. > The good news is that if Chaos is the realm of dreams... Keith, Burroughs would be jealous of your ability to mix the past with the contemporary into one, in your writings. He was also playing with that in his art. Past and present, time, chaos...aye!!!... our mayavi existence in this dream! Are we entropying as Burroughs seem to be saying? All I know is that I can't seem to keep my mind on one thing for a long period of time with all this noisy, yet somehow wonderful, electronic gadgets around and all this easy availability of info. Is the present more chaotic than the past? TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:06:49 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: Your Home page - http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/ Message-ID: <328813F9.4247@eden.com> Hi I just visited your home page using Netscape Gold 3.01. It looks fantastic. I like what you have done and also the links you have provided are very valuable. It is the links that bring people to the homepage. Lack of links will end up with a home page with no visitors. Keep up the good work. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:56:57 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: FYI: Gathering info from the Krishnamurti Foundation of India (fwd) Message-ID: Hi Here is some information for those Theosophists interested in Krishnamurti Teachings. Vasanta Vihar is across the river from TS International Headquarters in Adyar, Madras, India. MKRamadoss > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:37:57 +0100 > From: Dirk Lutzebaeck > Subject: FYI: Gathering info from the Krishnamurti Foundation of India > > From: Viswanath_Yegnanarayanan@es.xerox.com (Yegnanarayanan,Viswanath) > Subject: KFI Gathering Info There will be a three day gathering at Vasanta Vihar, Madras between January 25-27, 97. Contact KFI for further information. - --Viswanath ------- end ------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:33:33 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: The Integrity of Krishnaji Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112073402.2ef70dbe@mail.eden.com> At 10:11 PM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >m.k. ramadoss wrote: >> convention. Knowing the integrity of Krishnaji, this speaks for itself. I >> think this piece may be of interest to some on this list. > >Nasty mode on: > Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best >friend's wife? >Nasty mode off. > > Seriously, I certainly trust Dora and Fritz' word on Leadbeater, but >remember that even Krishnamurti was human. (Hell, even the Mahatma's >were human; what DID Moria put in his bong? > > Bart Lidofsky > *In* *all* *seriousness*, the only person who may be able to give you first hand information on Jiddu and his relationship with his friend/friend's wife (and timings) is on the Board of Directors of TSA (yes he is on the Board of TSA). It appears he had known all the three personally (and has the unique previlege of handful of individuals who sued Jiddu K and he and his wife were on the Board of Trustees of K Foundation/Trusts which was sued by CA Attorney General/and others). May be you can get some info from him. If you do, we all would like to know what you find out. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 11:54:35 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: to Bart re NYTS Message-ID: <199611121654.LAA12638@leo.vsla.edu> Dear Bart, I'm replying on the list because listproc is not answering my command "review theos-l" and I didn't save your email address. Thanks for the invitation. I have a friend in Connecticut and a brother and sister in Massachusetts, and hope to be traveling northeast to visit them when warm weather returns. By then ms. revisions on the Cayce book will be complete too. So the NYTS could very well fit into the plan, sometime in May or June, but it's a bit early to pick a date yet. Topic: Edgar Cayce and the Theosophical Masters? Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:14:11 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: FW: One Day In Peace, January 1, 2000 Message-ID: <01BBD129.ECAF5B00@rvik-ppp-217.ismennt.is> This Message from Steve Diamond in Santa Barbara, and also a "lay" theosophist, seems to fit in on this list. I forward it with a wish for an "inner peace" to you all every single day remaining of this century - and onward. Love and light! Einar from Iceland. > From: Steve Diamond[SMTP:ommm7@RAIN.ORG] > Sent: Tuesday 12. nvember 1996 20:46 > Subject: Re: One Day In Peace, January 1, 2000 Dear Friends: I am reading your interesting communiques, and wish to bring up the subject of ONE DAY IN PEACE, JANUARY 1, 2000. this is a concept for 24-hours where no guns are fired anywhere on earth, including on television! what if for 24 hours, whosoever happens to be at war on Dec. 31, 1999, agrees that for one whole day no guns will be fired? The silence would be golden. And what if also, the television programmers of the world agreed not air any programming which has a violent content? A friend of mine suggested that it will be easier to get the warring nations to stop firing, than it would be to get the world's television programmers to not air violent programming! At present, this ONE DAY IN PEACE concept is beginning to get further circulation. On April 6, 1997, it will be 1000 days until January 1, 2000, an auspicious date. This is a thought-wave campaign. Which is to say, the more people who grasp this thought, the more it comes into reality, sort of like the theory of the Hundredth Monkey, which I have taken to calling the Hundred Human! One Day In Peace, January 1, 2000.... pass it on... expect a miracle... best wishes, Steve Diamond From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 15:07:33 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Campbell's motive Message-ID: <199611122007.PAA26794@leo.vsla.edu> A couple days ago, JHE posted that [Bruce] "Campbell's intention, as he admitted to the archivists at the Theosophical Library at Pasadena, was to prove what he already believed before he began the book: that all phenomena is [sic] fraudulent, and the Masters don't exist." While establishing an author's intentions from second-hand reports of conversations occurring 18 years ago is better than just pure guessing, it isn't *much* better. I bet you this: if we could find Bruce Campbell and ask him this question, the answer would be "Certainly not": Did you ever tell anyone at the Pasadena TS library that your intention in writing Ancient Wisdom Revived was to prove what you already believed before you began it: that all phenomena are fraudulent and the Masters don't exist? This sounds very much like someone's highly biased judgment of what Campbell intended, which may have found *some* justification in *something* Campbell said. But as to his actually saying such a thing *verbatim*-- it rings very false. Even if such was his intention, would he say so in such a self-condemning way? More importantly, having read Campbell's book several times I do not see it as either proving or trying to prove either of the points named above at all. So if he was trying to do that, he disguised his malevolent intentions so well as to fool me and many others. I would have sworn that his intention was to give a sympathetic but objective history of the modern Theosophical movement, leaving issues like the reality of phenomena and Masters to the reader to decide. >From personal experience and from friendship with Gregory Tillett, I have learned one valuable rule: never trust anything Theosophical officials (and their supporters) say about the intentions of authors whose books they dislike. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:32:47 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: Powerful Search Software Message-ID: <3289CDFE.4096@eden.com> Hi One of the frequently needed facility is to search your hard disk to locate a file or a message or a spreadsheet based on one or more words. To search info on Internet data bases, there are several search engines. One of the well known is Altavista. The power of Altavista is being brought to our desktop. Here is a message I pickedup. I am going to try the software since I have several megs of theos-xxxx messages in addition to various other files. Even with text files, searching by Altavista will help. Take for example, if we have SD on Disk, Alta Vista can help search by one or more words. You may want to download the beta copy for free and try it. I think one would need a fast machine to do the indexing and searching. MK Ramadoss > > --------------------------------------------------- > Your Very own AltaVista - Powerful Local Searching > --------------------------------------------------- > > The larger hard drives of today mean more data storage. Increased > storage generally means more files. With more files, well, finding > things can be that much tougher....unless you have AltaVista Search > My Computer Private eXtension software. Fast and powerful, the new > software makes finding information on your Windows 95 and NT > systems a breeze. Using the same interface as the AltaVista > Internet search service, Search My Computer Private eXtension can > automatically build a full word index of all your HTML documents, > with additional support for more than 200 file types, including > Lotus, Microsoft, Word Perfect and more. Index your Word documents, > Eudora email messages and attachments, pretty well anything you > want -- quickly, and easily. Priced at $29.95 (U.S$), it will be > available for downloading from the web on December 5th, or through > resellers on December 16th. For those that can't wait, and want to > save money, order through the AltaVista Visionary Club before > November 18th and this gem will be yours for $19.95. > > AltaVista, Web: http://altavista.software.digital.com/ Visionary > Club: http://altavista.software.digital.com/blimp.html Phone: 800- > 336-7890 > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Nov 96 10:18:12 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: The Men who Fell to Earth - Paridiso Perdido Perfecto Message-ID: <961113151811_74024.3352_BHT116-1@CompuServe.COM> Very soon, the President of the United States will address the Nation. He will tell us that Extraterrestrial life exists - not merely bacteria from Mars, but living, sentient beings. It will be a very difficult speech to give. There is no way to predict how a world will react to the undeniable fact that we have been visited by strangers from another planet. But that is not all... The events that we have viewed tell us that one day soon the visitors from somewhere else will fly openly in our skies. They will make themselves known, not because any one of us humans requests it, but because there are beings in trouble living on our planet. Our Martian story told how a volcano would erupt, and endanger the lives of Martians living on our planet. We have viewed what happens next, and it is amazing. Ships will appear, flown by the group of Extraterrestrials that we call the "Greys." They will rescue as many Martians and humans as they can from the disaster. The whole world will see. The Greys will fly their ships over our skies, letting us know that we are not alone. They will not harm us. At the end of this story, you can read sessions from professional viewers at The Farsight Institute. We are sharing all the information that we receive because these events are of great importance. We are not interested in using these sessions as prediction devices. Remote viewing is a real phenomenon, and has been studied intensively for years. It is our hope that we can help educate the planet. Most of the sessions are scary. They show a world not ready to accept strangers from another place. They show economic collapse, militia activity, government mistrust, and riots. Because the visitors are about to attack us? No. Because we, as humans, can't even accept ourselves, let alone another species. Can we change the timeline? Yes. It takes education, effort, and a lot of hope and love. It can be done. But we can't make decisions for humanity. Our goal is to inform you of what we view. Through our work, we have discovered that we are no different from the beings who will soon appear. We all exist in ways that we don't realize - in dimensions and times hidden. We can learn to communicate with other beings, and in doing so, we are learning who we really are, and what our place in the Universe is. All of humanity is on the brink of discovering much more about ourselves that we can even conceive is possible. We are also on the brink of self-destruction. Taking one small step to welcome new friends is one giant leap from destruction and one giant leap towards amazing growth and discovery. Keith: Things like the above are being circulated on the internet, TV and radio. We are told by HPB in the SD that we are the composite beings born of the intermingling of strains from several ET lines including the Agnisvattas or FIRE LORDS OF MIND and the Barhishads or the VAMPIRE SHELLS OF THE MOON Who gave us our gross foamy bodies. ALso we are heirs to the divine monadic esssence. Which bodies do we identify with? Most of life seems a constant stuggle to pay bills, pay taxes, pay the cable bill, pay credit card debt and keep our vehicles inspected and in working order. What an order, I can't go through with it much less realize my higher mind much less my DIVINE self. Yet events force greatness on us all. If you met Jesus today, what would you say to him? If you met a GREY from a distant planet system, what would you say to him? Would they be different and why? I am afraid that if I say either, I would check out the fashion statement first. Does Jesus dress like Jesus? How is his haircut? Are his sandals shiney or dirty? Does he have a Ph. D.? Same for Mr. Grey ? I would have to gaze into those almond eyes and press the flesh of that repetillian skin and then probably dismiss him as just another bad special effect? The 90's are hard on all us. We seem so hard to scare or impress because our hair is already on fire? What would you say to Jesus if he looked like Mr. Grey from the Pleides? "GET A NEW SUIT AND THEN I"LL TALK TO YOU!" Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Nov 96 11:29:52 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Theosophy and Cabalah - Allah Cabal Message-ID: <961113162952_74024.3352_BHT116-7@CompuServe.COM> Conspiracies, some open and some hidden are seen as the unwatchable hand of Fate. So many NOW quote the Rubiyat "the moving finger writes, and having written, moves on". Scarey! (shudder!) If one looks, one can see the handwriting of the wall, but through a glass darkly. Free will seems ever more an illusion in the mesmerizing hand of those that point fingers and tell lies. Can you trust even a Zen master. I'm told they sell the answer to koans to aspiring monks these days, because eveyone knows power, position and prestige are for the PLAYERs not the FOOLS. To give Capracorn his due, John Algeo does have a lot to say in the current AT about being Happy where you are, blooming where you are planted, and realizing that Oz is write where you are, no wizards are necessary, no inch allahs, no cabals, no castle in the sky, no knight in gnostic army, no sacred animals, no good and bad witches, no munchkins and no Toto (well, maybe Toto). Who would we all be, with out Toto yapping at our ass, causing us to bump our wiley head and get sucked into a maelstrom of intruiguing je ne sais qua, porquoi? I want to be a Magician, but am only a fool, a zero, a jokester in a chaotically misdealeed deck and who will help poor ALice put the egg back together again. The mirror crack'd and there are seven days of bad luck all to the good. Like a moth to a flame the Holy Spirit warms and moves where it will. I would seek to hold it in my hand for just an hour to do what I would, but the power of love is fickle as a finger of fate. What vessel could hold the secret to the desire of the inner heart to see the Face and not the Hand. To see face to face, eye to eye, hand in glove, sword in scabbard, gun in holster are games only a child dare play, only they would know, to will, to dare and listen to the voice of the silence. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Nov 96 12:40:20 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Theosophy, children and spriteuality - To Barney Fife cum Laude Message-ID: <961113174019_74024.3352_BHT39-1@CompuServe.COM> I love you! You love me! _ sings the purple dinosaur. Purple is warm and fuzzy and spiritual like a water logged sprite, the repitilian gaze of Barney is like a Fife, a piped piper songe of peace as respite from a troubled school yard of predetor being in young humanoid bodies. I drive by the schoolyards in my neighbors and try to love the children from a distance. But it often brings mixed feelings. I am not sure how they feel. So many have a gang like hardness, like they are no longer children, but little bullies in the making of big executives, and those are the girls! They seem to call to me with strange gestures, but turn to scratch the dirt in my face as if they enjoy my presence, but loathe my softness, my receptivity, my generosity of longing for a kinder gentler face of a child. Perhaps, if I had my own children, I could get closer to the TRUTH of the spirituality of young people, to see the kinders in the garten of eden before the fruit of the tree spoiled so many games and dreamy summer revels in the splendor in the grass. To remember the smell of grass and dirt and childhood sweat as we played hide and seek, hot and cold, peek and boo. Maybe Freud was right about the latent years of touch football and sandlot baseball. The halcyon days of soda and pretzels and bears. There was such a communion of souls under the sun, quickly lost with teenage sturm and drang. I don't see how all the parenting skill workshops, daycare centers, abortion counselling, condoms in kindergarten and sexual harrasment charges against pulling pigtails will help all this and bring back my DAYS OF HEAVEN. Do you? As far a cyber sex goes, I say only for those well over 18. I wonder if the sperm and egg DNA information can be digitized? Imagine impregnating everyone on the internet the way you get all those junk mail, MAKE MONEY FAST, e-mail schemes. I wonder if there is a sperm bank cum dating service on the internet yet, where you can pick your mate with appropriate web page graphics, overnight a sperm sample and have a surrogate mother. Cyberparents, what a concept. It could make babies, it could make money? Who knows?! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:40:46 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: X-mas stuff! Message-ID: <01BBD1BC.DDD4FAC0@rvik-ppp-116.ismennt.is> Hi there all! The below are two messages I sent to the Bridge-L as a pat of a discussion there. Being not so much a discussion material, but rather some personal points for others to consider (or to ignore) I thought it might be of some value to someone on theos-l. So. Here it is - take it or leave it - the choice is yours! (Forwarded) Einar here: I was raised in the Christian Lutheran faith, but lost almost any contact when confronted with scientific study in school. From that point Science ruled my world view until age 30 or so when I encountered Theosophy, and through it most of the main religions and psychological and philosophical mainstreams. The above [discussion on fall from Eden] reminded me of my views before 30, when I looked upon the testaments as worthless lies. But I came to certain faith in them again as myths or allegories or in some instances as a very practical teachings of self-improvement. Regarding the FALL into sin, I early got the following explanation: It represents the story of a certain phase in the common human evolution - the first time a Soul (i.e. individual incarnating entity) becomes aware of the difference between right and wrong. As a matter of fact this marks the beginning of the separation or individuation of the Soul and the entering of individual karma. Later I encountered a fascinating treatise on this process in the books, "Up From Eden" and "Spectrum of Consciousness", by Ken Wilber (Quest Books). According to this theory it was (and is) an inherent nature of thought, that it crates division in the human psyche into the perceiver and the perceived. Hence the loss of innocence, and the inevitable psychological trauma of guilt. (I.e. sin?). This is thus no punishment from God, but an inevitable phase in human evolution, which will only end when the Soul has mastered the principle of thought to perfection, and also mastered the next step of evolution which is the enlightenment, the full continuos insight into the ultimate Unity of All. Later I have encountered few more fascinating "explanations" (esoteric keys) on various myths in the Bible. This is part of my Christian salvation of understanding. Peace to you all. The esoteric meaning of the Christmas story. While writing my posting on the Fall, another story came to my mind. This one is about an esoteric key to the traditional Christmas Story on Jesus birth, and should be valuable to all devoted Christians, as a method of devotion and meditation during the X-ms time. I have got it from my spiritual teacher (S.H.), which told us that it originated from the early days of Christianity, and was widely used by the hidden esoteric lore of Christian mystics throughout the ages. First I have to explain what an esoteric key is. Throughout the ages, as far back as records show, esoteric groups have been persecuted and executed for their beliefs and practices. Therefore the teaching was often camouflaged in popular stories and folklore, and needed some keys to become understood in the right way to enlighten the prentice. But that was not the only reason. These keys were often made in "levels", so that they could be given one level at the time, hence introducing deeper meaning at each level as the pupils insight matured. Instead of giving you some hints to the keys in the beginning, as usually was done, I will give you about one level of keys to this story. (The first hint could have been just that there is an inner esoteric meaning to it, and the next, that the story includes an "esoteric trademark", namely "an impossibility", here the virgin birth.) The esoteric "truth" of the Christmas story is the enlightenment of the soul. There is a totally new thing, a true "virgin birth" of new consciousness taking place, and the story tells about the expected happening of this in YOUR life! Esoteric key: Everything that happens in the story happens inside your psyche, except the crowded guesthouse, which represents the outer world, the entire outer Universe! The story tells of a soul, which spiritual heart is Mary and which mind is Joseph. The story begins with a spiritual insight, a mystical experience, proclaimed by the higher self (the angel) that *there is no way back*. The spiritual seed has been planted, and it will give birth to the enlightenment when time comes. The soul has to take to the inner road, commanded by a higher command. Esoteric key: Every single "thing" and "incident" in the story represents an inner faculty or an inner happening on the road to enlightenment. We have mentioned Mary, Joseph and the guesthouse. The wild animals are our lower instincts, the tame animals are our now tame emotions, the shepherds represent the discriminations, etc. Try to find out the meaning of the infinite heaven above, the stars, especially the guiding star, the infinite heaven above, the silence and darkness of the night, the three wise men and their gifts, the angles proclamation etc., and you will be practicing esoteric insight on your own. The esoteric practice includes the following: You have to learn the story by heart and ponder its esoteric meaning. When ready, you make your mind a theater for the whole story. You play it over and again in your imagination, connecting every single symbol to its counterpart IN YOU. When ready, after long practice, you sink it down to your heart, where the show goes on every minute of the day, even while you sleep. You wake up in the morning, knowing that it has been going all the night, and it is the last thing that you do when falling asleep in the night. (See: "The way of a pilgrim"). This is just one example of an esoteric use of an exoteric text. It doesn't matter at all whether the Christmas story is true or not, it just must have been written or adapted by an esoterist, (God?!) to contain a perfect esoteric document. I hope this brings some light to someone's intuition! (You have about a month to rehearse the story and then set up the play in your mind and heart!!!!) Your ever so humble prentice, Einar from Iceland From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Nov 96 11:14:39 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Liposuction, Tit lifting and Spirituality Message-ID: <961113161438_74024.3352_BHT116-6@CompuServe.COM> I understand, and Enui- ing minds want to know these things, that Dolly and Roseanne, those huge personalities we all know and love, are involved with the latest Hollywood craze that combines the cabala, astrology, tarot, Atlantis, aliens and probably the spirit of Ed Wood. Rabbi's are called into to discuss the benifts of liposuction around the second chakra, enlarging the engourged first chakra and a double dose of reshifted energy to the pectoral heart areas. Psychic surgery is performed on the face area giving all a great sense of inner beauty, serenity and sense of interior design not to mention an added 10% to the Master agents. I am trying to be high-minded about the whole thing, but art, spirituality and commerce are always a high-powered trance like rave mix. It worked for centuries for the Catholic Church. Testosterone skin patches, hair lines and electorlysis are only the beginning of the new more spiritual STAR. To be soulful, one MUST simply look the part and have the cash are you can't schmooze with all the really gnowing people at Planet Hollywood. Isn't for nothing that the first Krotona and theosophical ourreach missions were sent to Babylon by the Sea. A Picture IS worth a 1000 words for sure. I wonder if they are going to transmute all this into a golden enterprise on the silvered screen. If you look like Dolly and joked like Roseanne, who wouldn't beat a path to your door? I say traverse those paths girls and let your love shine. The world awaits that earthy comedy that has an air of firey tears. I am staying glued to Entertainment Tonight. What the Cabala did for OJ, hey!, it could work for us all! Namasate Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Nov 96 12:10:27 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Servants of the MASTERS or DUPES? Message-ID: <961113171027_74024.3352_BHT121-1@CompuServe.COM> Vultures or Owls? Angels or Daiemons? Aeons or Ions? Masters or Servants? Apes or Dupes? Sometimes I fear that what we call the Masters are Dupes themselves of something beyond even them. Dupes of evil or duplicates of ultimate good. We are not in the mode of being in above the small moment into the large moment that can see the grand schema embedded in the virus like meme, meme chose. Are they the same thing? Is this the ultimate horror or the ulitmate bliss? If you look and listen, you might hear things you don't want too? There is nothing funny or mystical about say - heroine addiction -but what about the heroine who climbs Mount Everest because it is there or Mount Meru or scales Shamballah - or settles for a sham allah of exstasy in pill form, digitized sexual craving raving mavens of madness and minions of what strange eye,what the hammer what the scale, what the armour, what the mail. Tyger, typer burning bright in the forest of the night, What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry. Fearful symmeatry, chaotic, devouring beauty that eats the soul like an addiction that anesthetizes before it bleeds one of life in such a soothing, cooing rush of sensation and surge of influx, outgo. Are we bringing up or down energies? Who can control the power of love and warmth and light. Did the Atlanteans get to this stage and consciously destroy themselves, because they realized that they were the dupes of some mad feeding God whose love demands such fearful sacrifice. A tyger is not domestic pussybutt a feline galore. The fear of God is a terrible thing, but only in the heightened state of expectation, ready to pounce or be pounced upon can one feel the Presense invisible, sensual, delightful beyond all chemical intoxication to a state of alchemical - no chemical - all chemicals - all energies - all light in edgey darkness. Am I channeling Kerouac or what? THe room is filled with the sound of left bank Channel NO.5 and "Let's Get Lost" Jazz - Let's not get lost - Let's get found! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:48:51 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Powerful Search Software Message-ID: <328A8893.511F@sprynet.com> MK Ramadoss wrote: > Even with text files, searching by Altavista will help. Take for > example, if we have SD on Disk, Alta Vista can help search by one or > more words. Or use the Free Software Foundation's grep (which is available for DOS). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:45:13 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: One Day In Peace, January 1, 2000 Message-ID: <961113194509_1782547975@emout08.mail.aol.com> Sorry, but that's the day we fire the K bomb. At exactly midnight CST, psionic blasters all over the world will sweep the heavens and the UFOs will never abduct a single earther again. Chuck the Destroyer From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:19:46 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: X-mas stuff! Message-ID: In message <01BBD1BC.DDD4FAC0@rvik-ppp-116.ismennt.is>, Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB writes >I hope this brings some light to someone's intuition! (You have about a month to >rehearse the story and then set up the play in your mind and heart!!!!) > >Your ever so humble prentice, > >Einar from Iceland A very interesting post. Thank you! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:21:51 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: Re: Powerful Search Software Message-ID: <328B1CEF.6BA7@eden.com> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > MK Ramadoss wrote: > > Even with text files, searching by Altavista will help. Take for > > example, if we have SD on Disk, Alta Vista can help search by one or > > more words. > > Or use the Free Software Foundation's grep (which is available for > DOS). > > Bart Lidofsky It would be a good idea to see the relative pros and cons of the two software (apart from the price which is obvious). MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:46:10 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: Truth is a Pathless Land - JK's Statement Message-ID: <328B22A2.77E8@eden.com> Hi Here is the famous declaration of J Krishnamurti entitled "Truth is a Pathless Land". A very precise statement that many may like to read. It was downloaded from Krishnamurti Foundation of America www. MKR ================================= TRUTH IS A PATHLESS LAND The Dissolution of the Order of the Star The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 2, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members. Below is the full text of the talk he gave on that occasion. What he said then is equally valid today. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many people will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain. You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it." I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. You must climb towards the Truth, it cannot be "stepped down" or organized for you. Interest in ideas is mainly sustained by organizations, but organizations only awaken interest from without. Interest, which is not born out of love of Truth for its own sake, but aroused by an organization, is of no value. The organization becomes a framework into which its members can conveniently fit. They no longer strive after Truth or the mountain-top, but rather carve for themselves a convenient niche in which they put themselves, or let the organization place them, and consider that the organization will thereby lead them to Truth. So that is the first reason, from my point of view, why the Order of the Star should be dissolved. In spite of this, you will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong to other organizations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong to any organization of a spiritual kind, please understand this. I would make use of an organization which would take me to London, for example; this is quite a different kind of organization, merely mechanical, like the post or the telegraph. I would use a motor car or a steamship to travel, these are only physical mechanisms which have nothing whatever to do with spirituality. Again, I maintain that no organization can lead man to spirituality. If an organization be created for this purpose, it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage, and must cripple the individual, and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness, which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth. So that is another reason why I have decided, as I happen to be the Head of the Order, to dissolve it. No one has persuaded me to this decision. This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies. Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this: not because I desire a following, not because I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd and trivial their distinctions may be! I do not want to encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles, either on earth or in the realm of spirituality. Nor is it the lure of money, nor the desire to live a comfortable life, which attracts me. If I wanted to lead a comfortable life I would not come to a Camp or live in a damp country! I am speaking frankly because I want this settled once and for all. I do not want these childish discussions year after year. One newspaper reporter, who interviewed me, considered it a magnificent act to dissolve an organization in which there were thousands and thousands of members. To him it was a great act because, he said: "What will you do afterwards, how will you live? You will have no following, people will no longer listen to you." If there are only five people who will listen, who will live, who have their faces turned towards eternity, it will be sufficient. Of what use is it to have thousands who do not understand, who are fully embalmed in prejudice, who do not want the new, but would rather translate the new to suit their own sterile, stagnant selves? If I speak strongly, please do not misunderstand me, it is not through lack of compassion. If you go to a surgeon for an operation, is it not kindness on his part to operate even if he cause you pain? So, in like manner, if I speak straightly, it is not through lack of real affection-on the contrary. As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, to help him to break away from all limitations, for that alone will give him eternal happiness, will give him the unconditioned realization of the self. Because I am free, unconditioned, whole-not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal-I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free; not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears-from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority, which you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers-a miracle-transport you to this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on that authority. You have listened to me for three years now, without any change taking place except in the few. Now analyze what I am saying, be critical, so that you may understand thoroughly, fundamentally. When you look for an authority to lead you to spirituality, you are bound automatically to build an organization around that authority. By the very creation of that organization, which, you think, will help this authority to lead you to spirituality, you are held in a cage. If I talk frankly, please remember that I do so, not out of harshness, not out of cruelty, not out of the enthusiasm of my purpose, but because I want you to understand what I am saying. That is the reason why you are here, and it would be a waste of time if I did not explain clearly, decisively, my point of view. For eighteen years you have been preparing for this event, for the Coming of the World-Teacher. For eighteen years you have organized, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you a new encouragement, who would set you free-and now look what is happening! Consider, reason with yourselves, and discover in what way that belief has made you different-not with the superficial difference of the wearing of a badge, which is trivial, absurd. In what manner has such a belief swept away all the unessential things of life? That is the only way to judge: in what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every Society which is based on the false and the unessential? In what way have the members of this organization of the Star become different? As I said, you have been preparing for eighteen years for me. I do not care if you believe that I am the World-Teacher or not. That is of very little importance. Since you belong to the organization of the Order of the Star, you have given your sympathy, your energy, acknowledging that Krishnamurti is the World-Teacher- partially or wholly: wholly for those who are really seeking, only partially for those who are satisfied with their own half-truths. You have been preparing for eighteen years, and look how many difficulties there are in the way of your understanding, how many complications, how many trivial things. Your prejudices, your fears, your authorities, your churches new and old- all these, I maintain, are a barrier to understanding. I cannot make myself clearer than this. I do not want you to agree with me, I do not want you to follow me, I want you to understand what I am saying. This understanding is necessary because your belief has not transformed you but only complicated you, and because you are not willing to face things as they are. You want to have your own gods-new gods instead of the old, new religions instead of the old, new forms instead of the old-all equally valueless, all barriers, all limitations, all crutches. Instead of old spiritual distinctions you have new spiritual distinctions, instead of old worships you have new worships. You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else; and although you have been preparing for me for eighteen years, when I say all these things are unnecessary, when I say that you must put them all away and look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do it. There may be a few, but very, very few. So why have an organization? Why have false, hypocritical people following me, the embodiment of Truth? Please remember that I am not saying something harsh or unkind, but we have reached a situation when you must face things as they are. I said last year that I would not compromise. Very few listened to me then. This year I have made it absolutely clear. I do not know how many thousands throughout the world- members of the Order-have been preparing for me for eighteen years, and yet now they are not willing to listen unconditionally, wholly, to what I say. So why have an organization? As I said before, my purpose is to make men unconditionally free, for I maintain that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of the self which is eternal, is the harmony between reason and love. This is the absolute, unconditioned Truth which is Life itself. I want therefore to set man free, rejoicing as the bird in the clear sky, unburdened, independent, ecstatic in that freedom . And 1, for whom you have been preparing for eighteen years, now say that you must be free of all these things, free from your complications, your entanglements. For this you need not have an organization based on spiritual belief. Why have an organization for five or ten people in the world who understand, who are struggling, who have put aside all trivial things? And for the weak people, there can be no organization to help them to find the Truth, because Truth is in everyone; it is not far, it is not near; it is eternally there. Organizations cannot make you free. No man from outside can make you free; nor can organized worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you free; nor can forming yourselves into an organization, nor throwing yourselves into works, make you free. You use a typewriterto write letters, but you do not put it on an altar and worship it. But that is what you are doing when organizations become your chief concern. "How many members are there in it?" That is the first question I am asked by all newspaper reporters. "How many followers have you? By their number we shall judge whether what you say is true or false." I do not know how many there are. I am not concerned with that. As I said, if there were even one man who had been set free, that were enough. Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity. So you will see how absurd is the whole structure that you have built, looking for external help, depending on others for your comfort, for your happiness, for your strength. These can only be found within yourselves. So why have an organization? You are accustomed to being told how far you have advanced, what is your spiritual status. How childish! Who but yourself can tell you if you are beautiful or ugly within? Who but yourself can tell you if you are incorruptible? You are not serious in these things. So why have an organization? But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without beginning and without an end, will walk together with a greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose. Because of that real understanding there will be true friendship. Because of that true friendship- which you do not seem to know-there will be real cooperation on the part of each one. And this not because of authority, not because of salvation, not because of immolation for a cause, but because you really understand, and hence are capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice. So these are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone. I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Nov 96 09:00:45 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Where is theo-l digest 727 Message-ID: <961114140045_74024.3352_BHT70-6@CompuServe.COM> i didn't get digest 727. Is the list processor asleep in cyber space again? Do computers dream of electric sex or angels? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Nov 96 09:10:39 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Current QUEST Message-ID: <961114141038_74024.3352_BHT70-8@CompuServe.COM> The current issue of Quest (I got it yesterday) is interesting as usual. Michael Grosso makes me feel like I'm not really going crazy that he has experineced a lot of the same strangeness that seems to be part of being on the path in the sense that he admints he was interested in "mediumship, near-death experiences, and UfO's, al of which involved apparent communication wiht some kind of a pafrallel world" He talks about taking the brush by the horns, so to to speak, and trying to be create something unique if not technically artistic. By connecting with the warmth of the heart that moves to the hand one can create "semi-automatically" he calls it in the sense that one does not give over coscious control to some invading alien entitiy, but cooperates and coocreates with one's own HIGHER SELF. You go, Grosso! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Nov 96 09:31:54 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: recepients theos-l Message-ID: <961114143153_74024.3352_BHT70-10@CompuServe.COM> recepients theos-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:49:39 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Truth is a Pathless Land - J K's Famous Statement Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961114095010.2a3f708a@mail.eden.com> Hi I am reposting the statement. The last post formatting was not ok. Hope this is better reading. MKR ============================================== TRUTH IS A PATHLESS LAND The Dissolution of the Order of the Star The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 2, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members. Below is the full text of the talk he gave on that occasion. What he said then is equally valid today. We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many people will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain. You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it." I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. You must climb towards the Truth, it cannot be "stepped down" or organized for you. Interest in ideas is mainly sustained by organizations, but organizations only awaken interest from without. Interest, which is not born out of love of Truth for its own sake, but aroused by an organization, is of no value. The organization becomes a framework into which its members can conveniently fit. They no longer strive after Truth or the mountain-top, but rather carve for themselves a convenient niche in which they put themselves, or let the organization place them, and consider that the organization will thereby lead them to Truth. So that is the first reason, from my point of view, why the Order of the Star should be dissolved. In spite of this, you will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong to other organizations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong to any organization of a spiritual kind, please understand this. I would make use of an organization which would take me to London, for example; this is quite a different kind of organization, merely mechanical, like the post or the telegraph. I would use a motor car or a steamship to travel, these are only physical mechanisms which have nothing whatever to do with spirituality. Again, I maintain that no organization can lead man to spirituality. If an organization be created for this purpose, it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage, and must cripple the individual, and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness, which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth. So that is another reason why I have decided, as I happen to be the Head of the Order, to dissolve it. No one has persuaded me to this decision. This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies. Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this: not because I desire a following, not because I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd and trivial their distinctions may be! I do not want to encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles, either on earth or in the realm of spirituality. Nor is it the lure of money, nor the desire to live a comfortable life, which attracts me. If I wanted to lead a comfortable life I would not come to a Camp or live in a damp country! I am speaking frankly because I want this settled once and for all. I do not want these childish discussions year after year. One newspaper reporter, who interviewed me, considered it a magnificent act to dissolve an organization in which there were thousands and thousands of members. To him it was a great act because, he said: "What will you do afterwards, how will you live? You will have no following, people will no longer listen to you." If there are only five people who will listen, who will live, who have their faces turned towards eternity, it will be sufficient. Of what use is it to have thousands who do not understand, who are fully embalmed in prejudice, who do not want the new, but would rather translate the new to suit their own sterile, stagnant selves? If I speak strongly, please do not misunderstand me, it is not through lack of compassion. If you go to a surgeon for an operation, is it not kindness on his part to operate even if he cause you pain? So, in like manner, if I speak straightly, it is not through lack of real affection-on the contrary. As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, to help him to break away from all limitations, for that alone will give him eternal happiness, will give him the unconditioned realization of the self. Because I am free, unconditioned, whole-not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal-I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free; not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears-from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority, which you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers-a miracle-transport you to this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on that authority. You have listened to me for three years now, without any change taking place except in the few. Now analyze what I am saying, be critical, so that you may understand thoroughly, fundamentally. When you look for an authority to lead you to spirituality, you are bound automatically to build an organization around that authority. By the very creation of that organization, which, you think, will help this authority to lead you to spirituality, you are held in a cage. If I talk frankly, please remember that I do so, not out of harshness, not out of cruelty, not out of the enthusiasm of my purpose, but because I want you to understand what I am saying. That is the reason why you are here, and it would be a waste of time if I did not explain clearly, decisively, my point of view. For eighteen years you have been preparing for this event, for the Coming of the World-Teacher. For eighteen years you have organized, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you a new encouragement, who would set you free-and now look what is happening! Consider, reason with yourselves, and discover in what way that belief has made you different-not with the superficial difference of the wearing of a badge, which is trivial, absurd. In what manner has such a belief swept away all the unessential things of life? That is the only way to judge: in what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every Society which is based on the false and the unessential? In what way have the members of this organization of the Star become different? As I said, you have been preparing for eighteen years for me. I do not care if you believe that I am the World-Teacher or not. That is of very little importance. Since you belong to the organization of the Order of the Star, you have given your sympathy, your energy, acknowledging that Krishnamurti is the World-Teacher- partially or wholly: wholly for those who are really seeking, only partially for those who are satisfied with their own half-truths. You have been preparing for eighteen years, and look how many difficulties there are in the way of your understanding, how many complications, how many trivial things. Your prejudices, your fears, your authorities, your churches new and old- all these, I maintain, are a barrier to understanding. I cannot make myself clearer than this. I do not want you to agree with me, I do not want you to follow me, I want you to understand what I am saying. This understanding is necessary because your belief has not transformed you but only complicated you, and because you are not willing to face things as they are. You want to have your own gods-new gods instead of the old, new religions instead of the old, new forms instead of the old-all equally valueless, all barriers, all limitations, all crutches. Instead of old spiritual distinctions you have new spiritual distinctions, instead of old worships you have new worships. You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else; and although you have been preparing for me for eighteen years, when I say all these things are unnecessary, when I say that you must put them all away and look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do it. There may be a few, but very, very few. So why have an organization? Why have false, hypocritical people following me, the embodiment of Truth? Please remember that I am not saying something harsh or unkind, but we have reached a situation when you must face things as they are. I said last year that I would not compromise. Very few listened to me then. This year I have made it absolutely clear. I do not know how many thousands throughout the world- members of the Order-have been preparing for me for eighteen years, and yet now they are not willing to listen unconditionally, wholly, to what I say. So why have an organization? As I said before, my purpose is to make men unconditionally free, for I maintain that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of the self which is eternal, is the harmony between reason and love. This is the absolute, unconditioned Truth which is Life itself. I want therefore to set man free, rejoicing as the bird in the clear sky, unburdened, independent, ecstatic in that freedom . And 1, for whom you have been preparing for eighteen years, now say that you must be free of all these things, free from your complications, your entanglements. For this you need not have an organization based on spiritual belief. Why have an organization for five or ten people in the world who understand, who are struggling, who have put aside all trivial things? And for the weak people, there can be no organization to help them to find the Truth, because Truth is in everyone; it is not far, it is not near; it is eternally there. Organizations cannot make you free. No man from outside can make you free; nor can organized worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you free; nor can forming yourselves into an organization, nor throwing yourselves into works, make you free. You use a typewriterto write letters, but you do not put it on an altar and worship it. But that is what you are doing when organizations become your chief concern. "How many members are there in it?" That is the first question I am asked by all newspaper reporters. "How many followers have you? By their number we shall judge whether what you say is true or false." I do not know how many there are. I am not concerned with that. As I said, if there were even one man who had been set free, that were enough. Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity. So you will see how absurd is the whole structure that you have built, looking for external help, depending on others for your comfort, for your happiness, for your strength. These can only be found within yourselves. So why have an organization? You are accustomed to being told how far you have advanced, what is your spiritual status. How childish! Who but yourself can tell you if you are beautiful or ugly within? Who but yourself can tell you if you are incorruptible? You are not serious in these things. So why have an organization? But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without beginning and without an end, will walk together with a greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose. Because of that real understanding there will be true friendship. Because of that true friendship- which you do not seem to know-there will be real cooperation on the part of each one. And this not because of authority, not because of salvation, not because of immolation for a cause, but because you really understand, and hence are capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice. So these are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone. I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free. ============== end =================================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Nov 96 09:04:26 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Walk On! Message-ID: <961114140425_74024.3352_BHT70-7@CompuServe.COM> Christmas Humphrey's in his marvelous book WALK ON published by Quest sums up Zen Philosphy as WALK ON. You meditate and walk on, you chop wood and walk on, you carry water and walk on, you see the buddha and walk on, you kill the buddha and walk on, you get to be a buddha for 15 seconds and then get thrown back in the dung pile and then walk on, you bathe and walk on, you go to jail and walk on, you get married and walk on, you die and walk on, and you get reborn and walk on. It heps if you can say things like: the fresh autumn breeze trembles the falling golden leaves outside my window this morning (which is true by the way). Namaste and walking on Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:26:15 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: A First in Internet Publication Message-ID: <328B1DF7.2264@eden.com> KFA has just published a book Unconditionally Free - J Krishnamurti. ISBN 1-888004-50-9. The unique feature is that this book is concurrently made available on the Net for *Free* to browse and download. It is one of the first instances where a publication which is released in paper is also made available concurrently free on the Net. I hope this is the trend of the future -- at least those who is more interested in getting the message out rather than having the $ as the first priority. I hope to see TSA and others take a similar approach. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Nov 96 09:30:53 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Getting off the girls backs - Studs need liposuction too Message-ID: <961114143052_74024.3352_BHT70-9@CompuServe.COM> Yesterday, I picked on Dolly and Roseanne for there forays into the cabala and liposuction. It seems men, are heading to the plastic surgeons in a far faster rate if you consider the change in percentages over time. It probably is a bell curve, say from the dawn of time there have been men who have attempted to surgically alter their appearance, but we are reaching a "high" point in the number of baby booming men who want to hang on to that youthful appearance, that paycheck, that chance for "admiration" and a really good table at Spago's. Can you blame them? In a world of maya, appearance IS everything! The outside is far easier to change ( and not even that is easy) that the inside. I wonder if tit or penis enlargement correlates with spiritual fullfillment and for whom? In the east the sages and boddhisattvas are potrayed as rather smiling fatties, like semi-nude Santas. The buddha is pictures with Marilyn Monroesque half closed eyes and with curves that would make Madonna blush. I was told by a "Jungian" that this does not appeal to Western tastes as the Greek and Roman Gods obviously pumped a lot of iron (or broze) on Mt. Olympus (an that's not all they pumped, I bet!). It is a matter of taste, I suppose. Curioulsy, the Egyptian (can you say Atlantean) pharohs and hieroglyphs suggest a more edgey kind of "natural" slimmed down, but not overly muscular beauty. They seemed to repose in their bodies like animals that are neither to fat or too muscular, but NATURAL. This naturalism is a key to their spirituality, I am guessing. They seem a little stiff a times, like they are striking poses and making grand gestures to each other in a kind of mechanical and overly formal way. John ANthony West in his fabulous book "Serpent in the Sky" hints at some things that are now probably obvious to a lot of people. When I went to the Egytian retor spective here in Houston, it was clear that there had been a lot of disfigurement over the years by who? - Christian missionaries are blamed, could it have bee the archeologists themselves, or graverobbers? Who knows? I am no Indiana Jones, but from what I saw there was a lot of phallic castration going on. It seems that the phallus and "seed" captured in the basket from the gods and the animal figures had great symbolic importance as "divine blessings" of some kind. Sneezing, expectoration, lactation and other secretions seem to play a role in religious life. Sacrifice was not unknown either, can you say "blood"? I also noticed that there was a kind of symbolic connection with crooks, flails and some kind of training staffs, pole or something. They seem to connect the various dieties in a kind of ecstatic "dance". These are my groping ideas, I am sure there is a lot of research being done on these issues. There seemed to be a kind of alphabet of connection, much the way we put sentence together, but for them there "words" had the sematics and syntax of real linguistic magick. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:13:12 -0600 From: MK Ramadoss Subject: New Book on JK Message-ID: <328B7D58.6A17@eden.com> Hi A new book by Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals" has just been published. I have not seen the book myself. It appears that the book may be interesting to many Theosophists and others interested in the issues addressed in the book. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:46:58 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: To Jack Message-ID: <328ACE6E.1DB5@earthlink.net> In the cool cool cool of the evening, tell 'em we'll be there! ________ ArtHouse From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:58:07 -0800 From: Art House Subject: One Day In Peace, January 1, 2000 Message-ID: <328BB20B.65BB@earthlink.net> Steve Diamond: >ONE DAY IN PEACE, JANUARY 1, 2000. this is a concept for 24-hours where >no guns are fired anywhere on earth, including on television! what if for >24 hours, whosoever happens to be at war on Dec. 31, 1999, agrees that for >one whole day no guns will be fired? The silence would be golden. Something very simple and yet most difficult to do, considering such things as revenge and money...even a place of worship is not safe from bombings and murder. However, perhaps the unity and spreading of thought would be such that world leaders and influential individuals will help in the ONE DAY IN PEACE. I'm reminded of a news article regarding intolerance in communities, with the rise of Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, etc. Most communities chose to just shake their heads without doing anything concrete about it. However, one community chose to show solidarity and support for the victims. For example, if a Jewish store was attacked, everyone put a Star of David on their door. The community also chose to actively chip in to erase any racist epithets. Let's hope for a peaceful January 1, 2000. TTT =o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:43:55 -0500 From: Jesús Ernesto Cruz Martínez Subject: Hola a todos!! Message-ID: <328B3E3B.5960@planet.com.mx> Hola a todos los estudiantes de tesofia del foro: Soy Jesus de la Logia Unidad de Mexico, ahora les escribo, porque deseo compartir con ustedes algo que paso en la Logia la semana pasada, no se cuantos de ustedes esten suscritos con Theos World, que edita Eldon B. Tucker, pero en el numero 6, estaba como primer escrito el de Saint Germain, y decidimos traducirlo, con el fin de que los miembros y simpatizantes pudieran entender plenamente su contenido. Bueno pues se leyo este escrito y hubo muchas opiniones, de las cuales quisiera compartirles: - unos no estaban a favor, de creer en el escrito, porque no consideran la inmortalidad humana como algo cierto, - otros estaban a favor, pero se les hace algo fantastico que este "teosofista" tan famoso, siempre haya vivido en la opulencia y en los altos circulos sociales, con todas las riquesas y opulencia de la epoca, como que se les hace algo raro y fantastico en un estudiante de teosofia y maestro de sabiduria, - algunos mas, no conciben la idea de la memtepsicosis, que es la facultad de transmitir el espiritu de alguien en un cuerpo distinto al propio, es decir, tomar otro cuerpo, como se dice por ahi, en algun libro de Conni Mendez. En fin que, al parecer, la historia de el Conde de Saint German, no convencio a casi nadie por aca, si ustedes saben algo mas de este personaje y el porque de su importancia, por favor haganlo saber al foro, porque este personaje es citado por Blavastky, y quisieramos saber porque, gracias a todos y saludos fraternales. PD. Por favor, mandenme sus comentarios de la pagina de la Logia Unidad, es muy importante para los participantes de la pagina, gracias. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:33:22 -0800 From: Art House Subject: From the Agnisvattas to Barney Message-ID: <328BBA49.147D@earthlink.net> Mr. Keith Price: >Very soon, the President of the United States will address the >Nation. He will tell us that Extraterrestrial life exists - not >merely bacteria from Mars, but living, sentient beings. As all X-Fileys know, "The Truth is Out There." >If you met Jesus today, what would you say to him? We'll probably walk widely around him, hoping he doesn't ask us for spare change or preach to us that the world is ending. >I love you! You love me! _ sings the purple dinosaur. Purple is warm >and fuzzy and spiritual like a water logged sprite, the repitilian gaze >of Barney is like a Fife There is a document circulating on the internet requesting signatures to save Big Bird. We Must Save Big Bird! >I wonder if there is a sperm bank cum dating service on the internet yet, where >you can pick your mate with appropriate web page graphics, overnight a sperm >sample and have a surrogate mother. Cyberparents, what a concept. It could >make babies, it could make money? Who knows?! All that is being done now without the internet. Who'd ever thought not eating together as a family unit during dinner time would lead to this. >Rabbi's are called into to discuss the benifts of liposuction around the second >chakra, enlarging the engourged first chakra and a double dose of reshifted >energy to the pectoral heart areas. Psychic surgery is performed on the face >area giving all a great sense of inner beauty, serenity and sense of interior >design not to mention an added 10% to the Master agents. I had my tits lifted, and I can tell you that the rays from my heart chakra now easily aim toward a higher plane, with all the love of man directed towards me! >Am I channeling Kerouac or what? Let's start a band of roving bongo theosophist poets lead by you, Keith, followed by the loquacious limeys. That way, we can attract the coffee house set (I wonder what Madame Blavatsky would have looked like in a skintight black leotard doing an imitation of Audrey Hepburn's Parisian cafe dance scene? Ooh, baby....). Can't you see just see Leadbeater bringing up the rear accompanied by beautiful boy dancers from "Sprockets". We could call the band The NeoTheoniks. (Plays Bongo Wildly) {;-)> "Yeah, man...I can dig it..." TTT S=oD From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:55:36 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Powerful Search Software Message-ID: In message <328A8893.511F@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >MK Ramadoss wrote: >> Even with text files, searching by Altavista will help. Take for >> example, if we have SD on Disk, Alta Vista can help search by one or >> more words. > > Or use the Free Software Foundation's grep (which is available for >DOS). > > Bart Lidofsky > Or use Windows 95 Find option Or your wordprocessor find option, etc., etc. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:17:06 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: MM:Humor Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961115001706.0068b638@whanganui.ac.nz> >Hi all, A little humour I thought you all might like. There are some things that never changes :-) > >Subject: How it came about... > >In the beginning God created heaven and the earth. >Quickly he was faced with a class action suit for failure to file an >environmental impact statement. He was granted a temporary permit >for the project, but was stymied with the Cease and Desist order for >the earthly part. Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why he >began his earthly project in the first place. He replied that he >just liked to be creative. >Then God said, "Let there be light." Officials immediately demanded >to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? >What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would >come from a huge ball of fire. God was granted provisional >permission to make light....assuming that no smoke would result from >the ball of fire, that he would obtain a building permit, >and (to conserve energy) would have the light out half the time. >God agreed and said he would call the light "Day" and the darkness >"Night". Officials replied that they were not interested in >semantics. >God said, "Let the earth bring forth green herb and such as many >seed." The EPA agreed so long as native seed was used. Then God >said, "Let waters bring forth creeping creatures having life; and the >fowl that may fly over the earth." Officials pointed out this would >require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the >Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society. >Everything was OK unitl God said he wanted to complete the project in >six days. Officials informed him it would take at least 200 days to >review the applications and the environmental impact statement. >After that there would be a public hearing. Then there would be >10-12 months before...... > >At this point God created Hell. > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. My software never has bugs. It just develops random features. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:19:53 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Servants of the MASTERS or DUPES? Message-ID: <961114231952_1183426770@emout06.mail.aol.com> Keith, Have you considered an exorcism? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:07:22 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Campbell's motive Message-ID: <199611140607.XAA08606@snowden.micron.net> Paul wrote: >>From personal experience and from friendship with Gregory >Tillett, I have learned one valuable rule: never trust anything >Theosophical officials (and their supporters) say about the intentions >of authors whose books they dislike. I just received the Winter 1996 Quest Magazine. There I was, minding my own business, reading with innocent heart the articles contained therein. I came upon the article "Buddhism and Henry Olcott," by John Algeo. It turned out to be one of the most scathing book reviews I've read, if you looked at it esoterically, of course. But what impressed me the most was how John Algeo said it all in such sweet, loving words - except for a few slippages into evil, using such terms as "willy-nilly" when referring to some of the author's conclusions (I think). This book review, disguised as an article, took up five pages. Now maybe the book (The White Buddhist) really is a horror to read, but enough that the president delivers the fatal blows. I thought every president had people that did that for him, you know, for appearances and all, being objective, and other happy stuff. I don't think John Algeo is being kept busy enough if he has time to write this kind of material and take up five pages of my Quest Magazine. And it was a really squishy defense of Olcott, which John cleverly disguised as a biography. There is nothing more disgusting than a Theosophist trying to tell someone off in a Theosophical way. There was also a picture of John Algeo. That cleared up a lot of things. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 23:04:29 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Barborka: "The Mahatmas and Their Letters" Message-ID: <199611150705.XAA94922@scv1.apple.com> I picked up Barborka's "The Mahatmas and Their Letters" (Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1973) on the basis of a recommendation on this list. I am at a loss as to what the recommender thought could be said for this book. I have read the first seventy-plus pages and there is not even a vestige of argument for the authenticity of the letters so far. There is a good deal of interesting biography and metaphysical speculation, but Barborka almost seems to delight in ignoring all the well-known contrary arguments to his positions. He never considers that Blavatsky's aunt might have assisted her in some minor tricks with letters, for instance, and dismisses Blavatsky's own possible authorship of the de Fadeyev letters based on nothing at all: "it is obvious that this letter was not written by Helena to her beloved aunt. Its style and the language used show that it was written by another person", he writes, with no attempt to elucidate this argument. The famous Sinnett brooch incident is credulously recounted, but the reader finds not one word about the major contrary detail, admitted by Blavatsky herself: that Blavatsky possessed a brooch matching in description the one she "found" for Mrs. Sinnett, that she gave it to a jeweler shortly before the manifestation for repair, and that she claimed to have sent it off to her family in Russia, angrily refusing to ask the family to provide any evidence of its receipt when challenged. Barborka is very impressed by the spiritualistic "raps" which Blavatsky could produce at will, and he insists that other mediums (unlike HPB) had to place their hands on a table to produce them. Wasn't it the Fox sisters who made their raps by secretly cracking their toe knuckles, and wasn't it Hodgson who said Blavatsky's raps to the back of his head were indistinguishable from cracking his own knuckles against his skull? The reader will search in vain for Barborka's contribution to this decades-old debate. Probably the most embarassing passage is on page 41, where Barborka breathlessly asks the reader to "imagine how any of us would have felt to have had a handkerchief produced for us from within another handkerchief before our eyes!" The answer, of course, is that we would feel we were witnessing a conventional, if not trite, feat of legerdemain. I cannot say that there is no stronger argument later in the book, of course, but I do feel that the first seventy pages of a four hundred page book are likely to provide a fairly representative sample of its modes of argument.... Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:04:10 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Chaos & Dreams Message-ID: <328B894A.62A@worldnet.att.net> >Murray Hope writing our of England for Aquarian Press in PRACTICAL >CELTIC MAGIC correlates dreams with chaos Keith, dreams only appear chaotic after we recall them when awake. They seem very meaningful and orderly at the time. This is an excellent example of just how subjective (or relative) the chaos-order dualism really is -- and is equally applicable to all dualisms. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:15:36 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: A First in Internet Publication Message-ID: <328C5EE8.46F5@sprynet.com> MK Ramadoss wrote: > I hope this is the trend of the future -- at least those who is more > interested in getting the message out rather than having the $ as the > first priority. > > I hope to see TSA and others take a similar approach. Maybe, but remember that currently, only about 5% of the United States has regular Internet access. I expect that with new technologies, higher availability, etc. etc., that the number will triple within a year or two. That's STILL not a lot. Until the number hits about 50% (and I believe it will, eventually), the Internet will still be a trend of the future, and the cost/benefit needs to be examined. Certainly, if volunteers can be gotten to do the transcription (which should be doable), the delta cost of putting it on the Internet is small. Better, of course, is the plan to, for example, put THE SECRET DOCTRINE and THE MAHATMA LETTERS on CD-ROM, with full Boolean searching capabilities. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:48:40 -0800 From: Art House Subject: NeoTheosophnik Bongo Art Missive! Message-ID: <328C7494.6625@earthlink.net> Keith, I can't tell you how refreshing it's been to receive your posts of late. It's so nice to see you take the bull by the horns and individualize the teachings rather than just quote or second guess references from the past. Do you know that you do that! It's one thing to read a lot and be able to talk the talk. It's another thing to internalize it and start to creatively express oneself because of and through it! It's really what we do now that is important, no? *Let's all sit under our own vine and fig tree!* Bravo! You are delightfully brave, and being creative cousins of a sort, we here at ArtHouse salute you for your creative courage. Enough patting on the back! ;-)> I for one have been stimulated to high degree by your suggestive poetics and want to share my thoughts with you. So much has happened since the days of HPB, et al, as you know, that it stands to reason that sincere aspirants must perform the task of assimilating their present psychological and cultural context in light of what they understand of esoteric doctrine. You have opened up several very interestring topics with your beatnik rants and we at ArtHouse have been soaring in good humor ever since! (All tits in the air!) I want to say to you at the outset that creative endeavor in light of spiritual doctrine has been a personal focus of mine for some time. Your insights are poignant and timely and I fear I cannot do justice to them in one response. I'll save the topics of emotion and sexuality for another time. Meanwhile, I have been mulling over a reply to your past posts. At one point you had expressed a comment about the seeming inadequacy of single images or sacred syllables to contain or convey spiritual merit and I want to say to you...NOT SO! Fathom this if you will: IMO, The artist (and this means anyone involved in creative sensual endeavor, be it verbal, visual, motive, aural, etc.) has to face the blank substrate of their craft. A writer's page, a dancer's quiescence, a musician's silence or an artist's blank paper or canvas. The very act of addressing the substrate can be one of conscious cosmic correspondence. It all depends on the strength and quality of the inward contact you are able to make with your soul or spirit (however you choose to designate such). I think of the stillness of the TaiChi player before they begin to move. If your attitude to the *ground* (as I call it) is sincere, and your perception of the pregnant emptiness before you is honored, any creative effort that you make will, I believe, be qualified with the proper context and expressive of your spiritual authenticity (warts and all ... and that's OK!) It's really fine either way, intentional or not, but seems to benefit manas more with focused attention. Conscious effort seems to help build the personal and collective antahkarana to a greater degree. However, it often takes an individual artist time to relate to and come to some understanding of what they have made. In creative work it also falls on others to interpret the cultural significance of what one has done and diffuse it's merit throughout the community. This all can take time. The artist's creative obligation is to produce from one's personal inner necessity. Any particular work's merit beyond that sphere is debatable. I have often waited in repose for the proper moment to lift brush to paper... When it comes, a single point or mark can be veritably God in expression where *I AM* (pardon the New Age-iness of that but stop and think about it). Such talismanic rituals of art-making are the basis for the seed syllable caligraphs and sacred diagrams of esoteric traditions. If properly made, they echo the state of attunement and function in the temporal world as crystalisations of awareness for all those who can benefit from them. Whether understood as such or not doesn't matter, for I believe intention is everything. Co-operative will is the key. Example: (silence or space)... +.- The example, albeit simplistic - performs a ritual of harmony in which awareness of the fact of wholeness breeds wholeness in human consciousness. This can have repercussions that will benefit those who come under the influence of such expressions even if unaware of them (work this thought out for yourself). Living with such formations of inward states reinforces the ability to maintain the contact and its strength. This I believe, is an example of practical occultism for an artist and a clue to one of the possible roles of arts in culture. Rituals such as sacred calligraphy, the writing of bija mantras, mandalas, tantric yantra diagrams, etc. have their basis in such knowledge. It becomes a matter of sincerity and disciplined effort. Sacred approaches to ritual art-making, whether in the depiction of traditional or original forms, are a hidden asset to development. This practice was vouchsafed to devotees and priestcraft and later disseminated (pardon the gender reference) to local communities where it eventually becomes folk tradition. As such it has served as a container for much of what we have in the world as esoteric and exoteric legacy. It would be hard to imagine the spiritual heritage we possess be it not for the artists and forms of art that have so obediently served to convey, contain and preserve it, no? I have often wondered about the differences between western images of spirituality and eastern traditions of the same. I don't want to overly generalize as there are exceptions in both cases, but in western depictions, one often finds that the images tend to place the spiritual powers outside the viewer and keep them effectively in a state of wanting, desire or lack. In the east, at times, there seems to be another idea at work. It is almost as if they asked a different question. Instead of *what does Christ (or Buddha) look like, and what is his story, etc?*, they sometimes seem to ask, *if I imagined being Christ (Buddha, or a Superior *Man*), how would I look at the world, see a flower, gaze at a branch, etc?* The resulting images are I believe, for the viewer, vehicles for entering into psycho-spiritual states that can put one in rapport with inner divinity and transform identity in a way that is prevented in the other modes of depiction. I respect both views, but find myself drawn to those that confirm the indwelling presence. The radical shift in perception of both self and the world that results is a benefit that cannot be ignored. A veritable *immortelle* bequeathed to the earth. A thread woven into the collective antahkarana. Creative necessity and impulse moves in all of us to varying degrees. In yielding to it we often fall into the best parts of ourselves and always return the better for having made the journey. I look forward to your thoughts and insights and want you to know that here at ArtHouse you have found friends. Sincerely Yours, Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:16:08 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Campbell's motive Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote about John Algeo: > There is nothing more disgusting than a Theosophist trying to tell someone > off in a Theosophical way. > > There was also a picture of John Algeo. > > That cleared up a lot of things. . . If this is not hate speech, what it is? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:15:15 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: A First in Internet Publication Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > MK Ramadoss wrote: > > I hope this is the trend of the future -- at least those who is more > > interested in getting the message out rather than having the $ as the > > first priority. > > > > I hope to see TSA and others take a similar approach. > > Maybe, but remember that currently, only about 5% of the United States > has regular Internet access. I expect that with new technologies, higher > availability, etc. etc., that the number will triple within a year or > two. That's STILL not a lot. Until the number hits about 50% (and I > believe it will, eventually), the Internet will still be a trend of the > future, and the cost/benefit needs to be examined. Certainly, if > volunteers can be gotten to do the transcription (which should be > doable), the delta cost of putting it on the Internet is small. Better, > of course, is the plan to, for example, put THE SECRET DOCTRINE and THE > MAHATMA LETTERS on CD-ROM, with full Boolean searching capabilities. > > Bart Lidofsky I totally agree with you. From a practical point of view, one of the advantages of books currently being published is that the text is already in a computer file and with very little incremental cost publishing on the internet should be feasible. It would be great to see the publications being put on CD Rom. Now that prices of recordable cd rom drives coming down, duplication of CD Rom at user level will be very inexpensive. In addition if the price of CD Rom is kept low enough, say at $10.00 per disk, there will not be any incentive for this too. Let us see what happens. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:04:23 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Powerful Search Software Message-ID: Thanks for the input. I believe the Altavista first prepares an index of the files and as such may be faster in retrieving. I have not tested the software yet. MKR On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message <328A8893.511F@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky > writes > >MK Ramadoss wrote: > >> Even with text files, searching by Altavista will help. Take for > >> example, if we have SD on Disk, Alta Vista can help search by one or > >> more words. > > > > Or use the Free Software Foundation's grep (which is available for > >DOS). > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > Or use Windows 95 Find option > Or your wordprocessor find option, etc., etc. > > Alan > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: > http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ > E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:18:36 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A First in Internet Publication Message-ID: In message <328B1DF7.2264@eden.com>, MK Ramadoss writes >KFA has just published a book Unconditionally Free - J Krishnamurti. >ISBN 1-888004-50-9. > >The unique feature is that this book is concurrently made available on >the Net for *Free* to browse and download. > >It is one of the first instances where a publication which is released >in paper is also made available concurrently free on the Net. > >I hope this is the trend of the future -- at least those who is more >interested in getting the message out rather than having the $ as the >first priority. > >I hope to see TSA and others take a similar approach. > >MKR The TS in England recently offered a lot of surplus pb books stock to members for just the postage. Lodges (I think) were sent free supplies for local distribution. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Nov 96 14:56:57 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Esoteric X-MAS made INTROteric Message-ID: <961115195656_74024.3352_BHT174-5@CompuServe.COM> First I have to explain what an esoteric key is. The esoteric "truth" of the Christmas story is the enlightenment of the soul. There is a totally new thing, a true "virgin birth" of new consciousness taking place, and the story tells about the expected happening of this in YOUR life! Esoteric key: Everything that happens in the story happens inside your psyche, except the crowded guesthouse, which represents the outer world, the entire outer Universe! The story tells of a soul, which spiritual heart is Mary and which mind is Joseph. The story begins with a spiritual insight, a mystical experience, proclaimed by the higher self (the angel) that *there is no way back*. The spiritual seed has been planted, and it will give birth to the enlightenment when time comes. The soul has to take to the inner road, commanded by a higher command. Esoteric key: Every single "thing" and "incident" in the story represents an inner faculty or an inner happening on the road to enlightenment. We have mentioned Mary, Joseph and the guesthouse. The wild animals are our lower instincts, the tame animals are our now tame emotions, the shepherds represent the discriminations, etc. Try to find out the meaning of the infinite heaven above, the stars, especially the guiding star, the infinite heaven above, the silence and darkness of the night, the three wise men and their gifts, the angles proclamation etc., and you will be practicing esoteric insight on your own. The esoteric practice includes the following: You have to learn the story by heart and ponder its esoteric meaning. When ready, you make your mind a theater for the whole story. You play it over and again in your imagination, connecting every single symbol to its counterpart IN YOU. When ready, after long practice, you sink it down to your heart, where the show goes on every minute of the day, even while you sleep. You wake up in the morning, knowing that it has been going all the night, and it is the last thing that you do when falling asl This is just one example of an esoteric use of an exoteric text. It doesn't matter at all whether the Christmas story is true or not, it just must have been written or adapted by an esoterist, (God?!) to contain a perfect esoteric document. I hope this brings some light to someone's intuition! (You have about a month to rehearse the story and then set up the play in your mind and heart!!!!) Your ever so humble prentice, Einar from Iceland Keith: I like your idea of meditating of the X-mas story of Jesus and making it our own rather than seeing it from the outside as a historical event in an age of miracles that is long past, we can bring the story into our INTERIOR mind and hears and spirit. We can become one with the image held up to us for centuries, centuries that we have been in and out of incarnation To incarnate the IMAGE of Jesus into our very lives, is not blasphemy, but good judgement, good art. And really good ART, is a Miracle, believe me! RIght Arthouse, friends? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Nov 96 15:01:50 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Enough already on the Soft Power of ready to share Ware Message-ID: <961115200150_74024.3352_BHT174-6@CompuServe.COM> I don't know about the rest of you, but I have heard enough about the search software to last 3 or so lifelines. Can you e-mail a copy of the DOS version to me, anybody? I humbly ask. They say ask and it will be downloaded unto you, but cyberspace is Pathless Land for me rights now. Ignore this gripe, if you want! THanks Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Nov 96 15:18:20 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: the FACE OF KrishnaMurti is Roadmap of the Pathless Clinton Wizardry Message-ID: <961115201819_74024.3352_BHT174-7@CompuServe.COM> TRUTH IS A PATHLESS LAND The Dissolution of the Order of the Star The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 2, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members. Below is the full text of the talk he gave on that occasion. What he said then is equally valid today. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many people will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain. You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it." I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. You must climb towards the Truth, it cannot be "stepped down" or organized for you. Interest in ideas is mainly sustained by organizations, but organizations only awaken interest from without. Interest, which is not born out of love of Truth for its own sake, but aroused by an organization, is of no value. The organization becomes a framework into which its members can conveniently fit. They no longer strive after Truth or the mountain-top, but rather carve for themselves a convenient niche in which they put themselves, or let the organization place them, and consider that the organization will thereby lead them to Truth. So that is the first reason, from my point of view, why the Order of the Star should be dissolved. In spite of this, you will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong to other organizations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong to any organization of a spiritual kind, please understand this. I would make use of an organization which would take me to London, for example; this is quite a different kind of organization, merely mechanical, like the post or the telegraph. I would use a motor car or a steamship to travel, these are only physical mechanisms which have nothing whatever to do with spirituality. Again, I maintain that no organization can lead man to spirituality. If an organization be created for this purpose, it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage, and must cripple the individual, and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness, which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth. So that is another reason why I have decided, as I happen to be the Head of the Order, to dissolve it. No one has persuaded me to this decision. This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies. Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this: not because I desire a following, not because I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd and trivial their distinctions may be! I do not want to encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles, either on earth or in the realm of spirituality. Nor is it the lure of money, nor the desire to live a comfortable life, which attracts me. If I wanted to lead a comfortable life I would not come to a Camp or live in a damp country! I am speaking frankly because I want this settled once and for all. I do not want these childish discussions year after year. One newspaper reporter, who interviewed me, considered it a magnificent act to dissolve an organization in which there were thousands and thousands of members. To him it was a great act because, he said: "What will you do afterwards, how will you live? You will have no following, people will no longer listen to you." If there are only five people who will listen, who will live, who have their faces turned towards eternity, it will be sufficient. Of what use is it to have thousands who do not understand, who are fully embalmed in prejudice, who do not want the new, but would rather translate the new to suit their own sterile, stagnant selves? If I speak strongly, please do not misunderstand me, it is not through lack of compassion. If you go to a surgeon for an operation, is it not kindness on his part to operate even if he cause you pain? So, in like manner, if I speak straightly, it is not through lack of real affection-on the contrary. As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, to help him to break away from all limitations, for that alone will give him eternal happiness, will give him the unconditioned realization of the self. Because I am free, unconditioned, whole-not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal-I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free; not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears-from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority, which you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers-a miracle-transport you to this realm Keith: Wow, truth may be a pathless land, but JK sure gets in his Wordsworth! For me, I like the part about the artists creates out of joy and love and for no other strictly SELFISH reason. Yet, I still think we live on the physical plane and so we have to COMPETE whether competition is "spiritual" or not it is definetly PRACTICAL. I mean look at Roseanne. She got a lot of mileage from being funny and ugly, but now that she's rick a little lipo, a little surgery can help keep her rich and famous, n'est pas? I mean look at the NUTTY PROFESSOR. Jerry Lewis can't be a schlimiel all his life, he needed to find his alter ego which was just as spiritual, his dark alchemical brother that creates COMPLETENESS< SYMMETRY like the TYger lying down with the LAMB - the RAM with a hundred red devouring eyes of St. Johns FEARFUL SYmmetry of the APocalypSO. Let's Dand our way into the pathless land, the new millenium. It doen't have to be ascetic or monastic or fascist or Maoist. Who would want that anyway? What about MIRACULOUS! Now, I would buy that with BODY AND SOUL. Creating bliss through artistic recreation of ourselves and our reality is only good JUDGEMENT, ask President CLinton. WHat a mensch! What a rauch! AND Hillary, what a Shekinah. Look to PRez, to guide us throught the pathless lies, to a new unfolding OzZYmanDIAS. Go figure! Oy vey, namaste Keith PRIce From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:17:59 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Negating conception Message-ID: <199611152117.OAA10906@snowden.micron.net> I just read an article discussing the possiblities in "mind over matter" to include women developing the ability to control their reproductive cycles through mind-induced changes in their hormones - making themselves receptive or non-receptive to fertilization. The author does admit that this can only work for very few at this time, but that eventually the time will come when it works for many - and will bring fundamental changes in the "abortion" debate. The article made some other interesting points - some which seem be diametrically opposed to HPB's assessment of abortion. . .and some of the postings here in theos-l. I know I am doing a disservice by subjectively pulling out certain sections of the article, but they seemed (to me) to address some of the discussions previously posted. ***** According to "Negating Conception: The Esoteric Nature of Hormonal Choice," by L.Rae Lake: "All crises in the material world - individual crises and those related to humanity as a whole - are governed by the Principle of Conflict, whilst crises in the spiritual world are controlled by the esoteric Principle of Decision (The Rays and the Initiations, p.608.). The interplay between these two principles is responsible for those uniquely human qualities - indecision and controversy. Mankind bargains with Nature constantly: we change the weather, live under water, experiment in space, save premature babies, and keep people 'alive' on respirators. If choice were not a natural part of human nature - on all levels - we never would have left the 'the Father's house' in the first place. Responding to monadic opportunity for reproductive decision is simply another example of humanity stretching to explore 'the hemline of God.' Hopefully, more people will soon realise that the spiritual circumstances of preganacy are more significant than that the form side. "Life is one and naught can ever take or touch that life. [Our] sense of proportion as to form [must] become. . .forward looking towards the soul, and not backward-looking towards the form nature. Some very sincere devotees and promising applicants are so preoccupied with form. . .that they have no real time to give to soul expansion (The Rays and the Initiations, p. 127) Esoterically, abortion is neither a political nor a religious issue, but instead is an intensely personal, human issue, subject to interpretation by agencies of each of the three departments of human living: Government (politics/law/economics), Religion, and Education (including science, philosophy, psychology, culture and the arts). If hormonal self-control, in some variation, ever becomes an accepted factor in human life (whether innate reaction or learned technique), choice may be seen as an inherent right to decide, rather than the foundering legislative privilege we see today. One the level of the psyche, the most inexcusable form of abuse is to bring in souls by accident. [Through] widespread promiscuity of the sexes. . .millions of souls have been brought into incarnation who were never intended *at this time* to incarnate and achieve exoteric manifestation. This fact is largely responsible for much of the present economic distress and the modern planetary dilemma. . .Lack of sexual control has brought into the world thousands of unwanted children whose appearance is solely the result of accidental and uncontrolled sexual relations, and in no way indicated the planned intention of parents - planned [meaning] - intending to offer experience to incarnating souls, with the conscious intent of offering the opportunity to hasten the 'birth into light' of those particular souls, thus rendering service to the divine plan (Education in the New Age, pp. 135-6). >From the perspective of the very relative rights of the soul versus the rights of the form, a pregnant woman is far more sacred than a foetus - not because she's pregnant, but because she's worked so long and hard in this incarnation to be a functioning human being. If her future is threatened by inability to rid herself of an untimely pregnancy, our future is threatened." ***** Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:21:49 -0500 From: Eric Escalante Subject: Maestro Ascendido St. Germain Message-ID: <199611171821.NAA26636@ns.sinfo.net> Hola a todos. Escribo en relacion al mensaje de Jesus sobre mas informacion del Maestro St. Germain. Para información mas detallada sobre el maestro estan "Quien es y Quien fue el Conde St. Germain" y "El Libro de Oro de St. Germain" ambos de la Coleccion Metafisica Conny Mendez, "Los Siete Rayos" le la Coleccion Metafisica Ruben Cedeño.Adicionalmente si se tiene acceso al web existen muchos lugares con informacion de la Jerarquia Espiritual. Hasta pronto, -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric A. Escalante Panama,R.de Panama From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:50:45 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: <328CF3C3.11C6@earthlink.net> Excerpts from Krishnamurti’s Truth is a Pathless Land: >You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking >down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up >something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The >friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece >of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said >his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him >organize it." >In spite of this, you will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong >to other organizations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong to any organization >of a spiritual kind, please understand this. >Again, I maintain that no organization can lead man to spirituality. >If an organization be created for this purpose, it becomes a crutch, a >weakness, a bondage, and must cripple the individual, and prevent him from >growing, from establishing his uniqueness, which lies in the discovery for >himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth. >You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority, which >you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another >can, by his extraordinary powers-a miracle-transport you to this realm of >eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on >that authority. >Why have false, hypocritical people following me, the embodiment of Truth? >Please remember that I am not saying something harsh or unkind, but we have >reached a situation when you must face things as they are. >Why have an organization for five or ten people in the world who understand, >who are struggling, who have put aside all trivial things? And for the weak people, >there can be no organization to help them to find the Truth, because Truth is in >everyone; it is not far, it is not near; it is eternally there. >With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for >those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free. As a person who has been disappointed by organizations, I see Krishnamurti's point. However, although Truth is eternal and we can all sit in our houses and meditate for it, there is strength in community. If we can have groups devoted to the environment, or fighting addiction, why can't we have groups devoted to helping ourselves and others develop spiritually? Okay, suppose a person picks up a piece of Truth, meets up with a bunch of people who've also picked up some pieces of Truth, and they organize, this will help a person who has not encountered any piece of Truth but knows where they are organized and that they will be shared. "I'll share the truth I picked up with you! Let's meet at this organization." One may tire of seeing the same truths gathered together, one may want to rearrange them or dust them off, and one may wish for a new one to increase the collection, but it's comforting to know that they are there for us to look at and be mindful of. There is too much apathy going on nowadays. We have good reasons to not believe in organizations and institutions. Our churches have failed us, our government has failed us, our schools have failed us, and even some of our parents have failed us. Thus, we pull away from everyone and go behind closed doors to seek Truth. However, our thoughts sometimes get muddled, with no clear direction or belief, and we wonder whether there's anybody out in the world who feels as we do. Sometimes we want to do something about what disturbs us, but have no idea how to go about it. We feel that nobody else cares about it and our passion about it can die down. Maybe we could do more than we are doing, but we make excuses by saying we have no time or that our everyday routine is hard enough. Besides, what can one individual do? Fear of organizations should not deter their formation. Although organizations are often marred by ideological inflexibility and stagnation, unwillingness to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes (try talking about HPB's and CWL's possible shadiness), or just that you can't stand ole Johnny or Susie in the group, there is strength in numbers. If there is tolerance and a willingness to listen and change, then organizations can be powerful places where individuals can inspire each other to do more than they think they could for the common good, and to help each other speed up their individual searches for Truth. I get the feeling that Krishnamurti possibly could have been finding his running of an organization and people's grand expectations of him to be too much, and that also influenced his dissolution of the organization. However, it is pretty presumptuous of him to think that it is in his power to set all of us "absolutely, unconditionally free." TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Nov 96 16:39:06 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: A now for something completely serious - Theosophy of Art Message-ID: <961115213905_74024.3352_BHT49-1@CompuServe.COM> TOWARD A THEOSOPHY OF ART Despite my silly posts, I am not really obsessed with sex so much as art. How are they related? How are they spiritual or capable of being SPIRITUALIZED or theosophical in the sense of echoing in a NEW way the Ancient Wisdom. I would like to suggest that it doesn't take a lot of effort to be influenced indirectly, unconsciously by art of the Ancient Wisdom tradition. It is really all around us, not just in coded hidden esoteric form, but out in the open as the CODE itself. Our alphabets and number systems, Egytian, Hebrew, Roman, Phonecian, have allowed the creation of our dynamic, one might even say monstrous technologies like the Internet which we are now sharing and which are nothing more than the dew jewels in Indra's net of consciousness crystallized, mechanized and elecrified to create a new kind of old linking of our very consciousnesses which CANNOT be separated from our SPIRIT. Try as we might, we are all hapless dupes and victims most of the time and active Masterful coocreaters some of the time of the same basic elements of communication as art whether the elements be sound, light, color, electromagnetism, number, letter, biological DNA markers etc. I picked up GIOVANNI GENTILE's book "The Philosophy of Art" synchonistically. I had no idea that his life was his ART, his philosophy was ultimately his DESTINY, tragic and beautiful like art itself. I only skimmed in an accelerated learning style his translated work. The translater apologized that Gentile's style was to prolix, diffuse and ITALIENATEDly ROmanTic for our dry scholarly plane fair ENglish tastes. He was verbose not logical. He accentuated, some would say over- accentualted the possibilites that were inherent almost immenant in the operatic style of Italian. I would like to go on to echo some problems he uncovered and lived out. They haunt our world today like an uneasy Zeit-Geist that is in no way paltry or polter. I am talking about his collusion with Mussolini's regime of fascism. Like Ezra Pound, he did the UNforgiveable. He suggested even deified a style of art, a style of life that we can no longer even CONSIDER in this age of political CORRECTNESS. How could he have betrayed us, the future artists, the future citizens that were and are and will be starving for MEANING. Fasten you seat belt fellow theosophists, his life and thought weren't pretty, warm, fuzzy or new agey at all. Shirley McClaine and Jane Fonda wouldn't go near and I fear I shouldn't either. But the I am definetly not in their league or John Algeo's either, so I have a certain freedom, to dare, to know, to will and FLAP my FACE. What was his fearful message? He dared to suggest that the artist cannot will to be silent. That art is not so much thought in the Aristotielian Appollonian formalistic logical mode, but IS a priori, de facto FEELING before it is anything. That feeling, not form or matter or thought arises ex nihlo. Who can look at this? Who would consider the fearful consequences of acting from FEELING, not neurolinguistic programming of the political correct and righteously spiritual in a theosophical mode. What is the brotherhood of humanity? Whoa! No I am not apologizing for the jack-booted (a term that has amazingly reappeared in the STRANGEST mouths and other orifices) juggernaut of genecidal madness. Yet fate moves us from within. Then moving finger cannot help but trace a line that is not fully under conscious control, but is under the control of FEELING before form. Before we judge and think and talk, we feel. We are doomed to art more than sin. It is original and drives the market at Southeby's daily. Jackie O's sheets are not my sheets and for valuable reasons. President Kenndy, not to mention Aristotle, never slept in MY bed even as platonic ideals, believe me! The very people that kill and maime and feed and fuel the world economy and death mills are the first to send troops to Africa on HuMANisamaritan (sic-sick) missions of mercy. Mercy, is right and amazing grace to boot! Society always puts it best face forward, but it always sends someone else son's to the war zones and gas chambers. Can we worry about issues of ART and FEELING before we FEED the starving minnions of the juicy jungles of tribal jealousies of Hatfield and McCoy rivalries that would make the Irish blush with Republican terroristic shame. Art is commerce, is politics, is economics, is spirit, is theosophy. Gentile's look at Leopardi's poetty among other things lead to a very uneasy truce with Musulini that ultimately lead to his assasination for standing up for anti-fascist propagandists in the underground in 1944. Like Bernardo Bertulluci's anti-hero (if there ever was one) in THE CONFORMIST, Gentile like Mussolin and perhaps even Hitler helped the WORLD PROCESS OF ART in a way that is tragi-comic in the worst way like a Borsht belt comedian trying to imitate Stridentsand for an Eva Peron encore? Madonna, the truth is we never loved you, only we couldn't take our eyes and ears off you, you PROGrAMMED our soul! I don't want my MTV anymore, not like that! Was his/her/now our song and thought worth her salt? The sulffer dioxide fumes of hell leap around his soul tormented by the thought: what if I DIDn't have to do it just that way. Could he escape our condemnation? Cound we put him up there we the greats like Juddu Krishnimurti not to mention Col. Ollcott or even HPB? Yet all are great just because they did what they had to do despite the judgements of history, but with de-infinite help even from the likes of the 3rd Reich, Spagetthi fascism (oxymoronic, I'm sure) and MTV (heard any music there recently?). Does Gentile's spirit live today? Tyger, typer burning bright, in the armies of the night, what immortal hand or art could frame thy fearless symmetry? What would a theosophy of art (not theosophical art, whatever that might be) be, look like, feel like? What heartfelt movement is rumbling just under the surface of the fabric of time ready to emerge? With a roar or whimper, by fire or ice, it is all the same and can be no different. Let the Feelings be with you, fellow artists unite (Alan are you listening?). Namaste Keith PRice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:38:32 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Campbell's motive Message-ID: In message <199611140607.XAA08606@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >There is nothing more disgusting than a Theosophist trying to tell someone >off in a Theosophical way. A sickening thing altogether. > >There was also a picture of John Algeo. No comment. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:55:49 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Walking, too! Message-ID: <328CF4F3.20A0@earthlink.net> Keith Price wrote: >He talks about taking the brush by the horns, so to to speak, and trying to be >create something unique if not technically artistic. By connecting with the >warmth of the heart that moves to the hand one can create "semi-automatically" >he calls it in the sense that one does not give over coscious control to some >invading alien entitiy, but cooperates and coocreates with one's own HIGHER >SELF. Yay! I need to be reminded of that as often as possible. It's always, make to sell and appeal, or make from one's own HIGHER SELF? Maybe make to sell and appeal can also coincide with make from one's own HIGHER SELF, although that's sometimes hard to reconcile in my own maya. >Christmas Humphrey's in his marvelous book WALK ON published by Quest sums up >Zen Philosphy as WALK ON. Sometimes I crawl on, have a good cry, but keep on goin'. Namaste, namaste, Keith, keep on walking! Re: Getting off the girls backs - Studs need lipsuction too Vanity, vanity. I wonder whether ole Abe would get elected today? We would probably say that he talks too slow, is too plain, gawky, and wears a funny hat. And what about that beard? Some of us girls don't like beards on guys. Who cares if he writes a great speech! Today, he'd probably be relegated to speech writer for a good looking, sweet talking presidential candidate. Today I sign myself, TFT (Tits for Theosophy, ah, the raised rays from the heart chakra!)S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:08:53 UTC From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Re: the FACE OF KrishnaMurti (sic) Message-ID: <199611170208.3543800@microfone.net> Keith: Are you alright? I read your most recent post on theos-l -- or rather, I skimmed over it and read the last paragraph -- -- name-calling and untoward criticism is not like you. Is everything OK? Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:25:19 UTC From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Even more sic Message-ID: <199611170225.3544300@microfone.net> TO: Everyone reading theos-l : mea culpa. Now and then, somebody posts something to theos-l that was intended as a private posting. I get a kick out of most of these, because I've been able to meet a number of the members here in person and to carry on private correspondence with quite a few others, and that sort of thing always makes it easier to "put a face with the lines", so to speak. Now I've gone and done it. Ah,... what to say, except perhaps that whipping the occasional U-turn without a signal helps us to keep perspective (Chuck, are you out there? :) Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:33:19 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Hate speech Message-ID: <199611170133.SAA08582@snowden.micron.net> >> There is nothing more disgusting than a Theosophist trying to tell someone >> off in a Theosophical way. >> >> There was also a picture of John Algeo. >> >> That cleared up a lot of things. . . Max responded: >If this is not hate speech, what it is? Hate speech?? The man IS meaner than he looks! I was told by two people from the Northwest Lodge that John Algeo has one of the most trusting and kind faces, one that makes you want to trust, and then spill your guts - then regretting you ever did it. I didn't really understand what they meant until I really looked at his picture for the first time. I would trust the man, too, he does have a kind face. Actually I trusted him before I ever saw him, I voted for him. If you consider this hate speech because I am seemingly "backbiting" - you can rest assured. I've let Mr. Algeo know how I feel via mail, and I also told him that I aired my complaints on theos-l. The above criticism wasn't hate speech. I don't hate John Algeo. I hold any president to much higher standards than the average individual. I don't feel he has lived up to them. He doesn't have to be the "attack dog" for the Theosophical Society. Using his special power as president of the Theosophical Society to discredit a writer is not right. He should stay above the fray. Leave the "fraying" to the "underlings." It just plain looks bad. My personal opinion. I'm sorry if you thought it was hate speech, it is apparent I was sorely lacking in clarity and qualifiers, for I believe it is always the writer and not the readers' fault, should misunderstandings occur. I shall try to be more diligent next time. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:16:16 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Hate speech Message-ID: <328E7570.2643@eden.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > >> There is nothing more disgusting than a Theosophist trying to tell someone > >> off in a Theosophical way. > >> > >> There was also a picture of John Algeo. > >> > >> That cleared up a lot of things. . . > > Max responded: > > >If this is not hate speech, what it is? > > Hate speech?? The man IS meaner than he looks! I was told by two people > from the Northwest Lodge that John Algeo has one of the most trusting and > kind faces, one that makes you want to trust, and then spill your guts - > then regretting you ever did it. I didn't really understand what they meant > until I really looked at his picture for the first time. I would trust the > man, too, he does have a kind face. Actually I trusted him before I ever > saw him, I voted for him. > > If you consider this hate speech because I am seemingly "backbiting" - you > can rest assured. I've let Mr. Algeo know how I feel via mail, and I also > told him that I aired my complaints on theos-l. > > The above criticism wasn't hate speech. I don't hate John Algeo. I hold > any president to much higher standards than the average individual. I don't > feel he has lived up to them. He doesn't have to be the "attack dog" for > the Theosophical Society. Using his special power as president of the > Theosophical Society to discredit a writer is not right. He should stay > above the fray. Leave the "fraying" to the "underlings." It just plain > looks bad. My personal opinion. > > I'm sorry if you thought it was hate speech, it is apparent I was sorely > lacking in clarity and qualifiers, for I believe it is always the writer and > not the readers' fault, should misunderstandings occur. I shall try to be > more diligent next time. > > Kym Kym: My 2 cents worth!! (2cent do not buy much these days!!!) Somewhere, HPB made a very interesting statement on Hate. Fear and hatred are essentially one and the same. He/she who fears nothing will never hate, and he/she who hates nothing wll never fear. IMHO, No one can judge any one else just by how they look. It is what they do that is important. I deal with a lot of people every day and am involved in a lot of very critical decisions where the only linkage between me and them are (1) trust and (2) my technical expertise and (3) my experience, in that order. Based on this, I have found that (1) trust is something that is *earned* and implicit in it is the openness of communication and is not something that one gets just because of any (worldly) accomplishments, however high or important that may be. It takes a lot of time. Secondly, I find that the greatness and meanness of individuals show up in little things - i.e. their true personality rears its (ugly/beautiful) head even though we all try to put a mask around it. And over a period of time, these *little* things snow ball and go either way - you learn to see the greatness and meanness of people whom you deal with. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:26:40 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: K and Rajagopals Message-ID: <328E77E0.34EB@eden.com> A First Look at the Book: I just received the latest book by Mary Lutyens titled Krishnamurti and The Rajagopals. It is a very detailed response to many of the statements contained in Radha Sloss' book - Living in the Shadows with J Krishnamurti. The value of the book seems to be in the many detailed historical facts that I have not seen published before. Hopefully we will see reviews in course of time. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:39:38 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the Quest Message-ID: <199611170249.VAA02808@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > There was also a picture of John Algeo. >> I thought it was a rather nice picture of John Algeo. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:43:05 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: internet publications Message-ID: <199611170252.VAA03030@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > It would be great to see >the publications being put on CD Rom. Now that prices of recordable cd >rom drives coming down, duplication of CD Rom at user level will be very >inexpensive. In addition if the price of CD Rom is kept low enough, say >at $10.00 per disk, there will not be any incentive for this too. > > Let us see what happens. > > MKR > I can tell you what'll happen. Unless one of us does something ... nothing will happen. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:16:17 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: internet publications Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > > It would be great to see > >the publications being put on CD Rom. Now that prices of recordable cd > >rom drives coming down, duplication of CD Rom at user level will be very > >inexpensive. In addition if the price of CD Rom is kept low enough, say > >at $10.00 per disk, there will not be any incentive for this too. > > > > Let us see what happens. > > > > MKR > > > > I can tell you what'll happen. Unless one of us does something ... nothing > will happen. > > Liesel Amen. ...MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:09:38 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Hate speech Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Hate speech?? The man IS meaner than he looks! I was told by two people > from the Northwest Lodge that John Algeo has one of the most trusting and > kind faces, one that makes you want to trust, and then spill your guts - > then regretting you ever did it. I didn't really understand what they meant > until I really looked at his picture for the first time. I would trust the > man, too, he does have a kind face. Actually I trusted him before I ever > saw him, I voted for him. > I'm sorry if you thought it was hate speech, it is apparent I was sorely > lacking in clarity and qualifiers, for I believe it is always the writer and > not the readers' fault, should misunderstandings occur. I shall try to be > more diligent next time. Kym, I have perceived it as a hate speech in context of previous discussions about theosophical leaders, their character, and so on, that was generally marked by a lack of civility--calling names etc. (e.g. someone several months ago--perhaps before you joined this list--said Joy Mills was "a b****", and methodically proceeded to provide abundant evidence supporting his view). If you got damaging news about John Algeo, and you believe it's true, it's OK with me. However, I am still not satisfied by what you wrote above as you shared with the list participants something they cannot verify--at least I cannot. I am wondering what *I* is going to do with it, and why at all I need to read it. So I still feel uneasy about it. If I were Ms. Manners, I would offer this advice: Always hate not a (wo)man but her/his sins. This means one may fight with others over ideas or actions, but will always keep one's heart open to them. How else can the brotherhood be established? Max From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:10:54 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: <961117101054_1682369426@emout05.mail.aol.com> Maybe it's the coming of winter or the remnants of my cold, but I keep getting this feeling that TRUTH may not be all that it's cracked up to be. It seems to be either inaccessible or, once found, hopelessly boring. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that an entertaining lie is better than a boring truth any day of the week. Does this qualify me to run for the TS board of directors? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:11:53 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A now for something completely serious - Theosophy of Art Message-ID: <961117101153_1882856851@emout19.mail.aol.com> I fear a Theosophy of Art would be the same as a Theosophy of anything else. Pompous, arrogant, boring, out of date before it was created and totally ignored by everyone else. (it must be the weather) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:46:30 -0500 (EST) From: "John E. Mead" Subject: Theos-xxx lists & vnet email collisions Message-ID: <199611171846.NAA18511@lys.vnet.net> hi - FYI - news msg to all regarding the theos-xxx lists (and ti-l). vnet has had severe thrashing on their popmail machine affecting email delivery the last week. So if you had noticed it being flakey you were very much correct. A fix which helped greatly was implemented recently. However it may be untill tuesday (19th) before things really get worked out. On Monday they are scheduled to add new hardware which will eliminate the throughput problems (this hardware has been undergoing performance/configuration testing since friday). peace - john e. mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:00:46 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Maybe it's the coming of winter or the remnants of my cold, but I keep > getting this feeling that TRUTH may not be all that it's cracked up to be. > It seems to be either inaccessible or, once found, hopelessly boring. I am > rapidly coming to the conclusion that an entertaining lie is better than a > boring truth any day of the week. > Does this qualify me to run for the TS board of directors? > Chuck the Heretic Only if you maintain that belief for at least six years ... (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:22:11 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Occult Chemistry on Alchemy-list Message-ID: Alchemy-list are discussing B&L's Occult Chemistry. Forwarding a few messages. (Cross-fertilization...) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To: Multiple recipients of list ALCHEMY-LIST > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:25:12 -0800 > From: Michael Prescott >The book was Occult Chemistry and was opened to the page showing >tritium, a then unknown (in non-occult circles) radioactive isotope of >hydrogen. The inter-war periods of the 20th century gave light to an amazing amount of material that arose in previous periods in North America, Germany, and as much of Europe. The fear was that the information would be lost forever after the disolution of the European order in WW I. Among the other noteworthies, in 1926 there is documented evidence to suggest knowledge of the existence of not only the alternate hydrogen isotopes: Deuterium and Tritium but also the elemental positions of Neptunium and Plutonium within the periodic table (albeit, the names were those as given by the author). This was one of the works of Walter Russell, whom from the circumstance and timeframe listed in the 'Fulcanelli' work, strongly suggests that he was the subject of the story at one point. There is a long-standing tradition of anonymity associated with published works of this sort: Leadbeatter? (c'mon) Admiral Led? (Pb Randolf) Anton Kirchweger (the Churchgoer) Basil Valentine (Tholde, perhaps) It behooves the investigator to judge the value of the work on its own merit (at many levels), rather than the personality of the author. The worse case arises when the reader's personal world-view cannot tolerate an alternate world-view no matter how irrelevant or innoquous. A Reichian might label that person as emotionally-plagued. Frankly, if you aren't willing to consider the alternatives, why bother? This is the price of admission; arm-chair occultists need not apply. It is a pity to see how few (even today) appreciate why this is still so. [ follow-ups ignored ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To: Multiple recipients of list ALCHEMY-LIST > From: Adam McLean > Date: 17th Nov 1996 >Raymond P. Cullen >The book was Occult Chemistry and was opened to the page showing >tritium, a then unknown (in non-occult circles) radioactive isotope of >hydrogen. Can you give the page number? I cannot find a reference to 'Tritium' in my copy of Occult Chemisty. Leadbeater did describe an element called 'Occultum' which he places between Hydrogen and Helium. >There is a long-standing tradition of anonymity associated with published >works of this sort: > Leadbeatter? (c'mon) Leadbeater's name was not pseudonymous. He was a well known theosophist and worked with Annie Besant, discovering Krishnamurti, and training him for his role as the world teacher. He was later involved in a notorious court case. >Mark House >Each line of a vortex is also a vortex, each set of spirals have >subspirals. For 6 levels. The famous picture of an interwoven spiral which Besant and Leadbeater presented as describing the 'ultimate physical atom' seen through his clairvoyance was actually taken from a book published 20 years earlier. Babbitt, Edwin. Principles of Light and Colour, 1878. Adam McLean - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To: Multiple recipients of list ALCHEMY-LIST > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:37:45 -0500 > From: Raymond P. Cullen Adam McLean wrote: > Can you give the page number? I cannot find a reference to 'Tritium' in my copy of >Occult Chemisty. Leadbeater did describe an element called 'Occultum' which he >places between Hydrogen and Helium. Adam, you have me at a disadvantage since I have never possessed Occult Chemistry, nor looked at it again. It was 5 years ago, and I am probably mistaken about the use of the word "tritium." As I recollect, the atom did have the structure of tritium. However, 'Occultum' may well have been what I was looking at. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:31:36 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: Hate not - but love thy enemy! Message-ID: <01BBD4DF.C1AA9C80@rvik-ppp-216.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD4DF.C1B23DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16. November 1996 23:08 Max wrote: If I were Ms. Manners, I would offer this advice: Always hate not a=20 (wo)man but her/his sins. This means one may fight with others over = ideas=20 or actions, but will always keep one's heart open to them. How else can=20 the brotherhood be established? Einar here: Why hate at all?=20 Jesus had a teaching of love that I think we should take a little more = seriously as a psychological advise. He said: "Love thy enemy", which = might seem impossible (it isn't), but if we start with "don't hate your = enemy" it may make a sense to us.=20 Who is my enemy, and where is my enemy? My enemy is one that I have made = so in my psyche, true? He/she/it is only in my head, and being my = creation, it should be in my power to unmake, just as to create.=20 My enemy can be a person, an idea (sin), or something belonging to = myself, my sins, my fear, my thoughts or emotions. In fact it is a = disharmony in MY psyche that is completely unnecessary, and usually has = nothing to do with the "object" of my hate. In most cases the "object" = does not know or understand my feelings at all. So why hate? You can = just eliminate your enemy - how about that! Reconciliation is a psychological wizardry that is of enormous = importance if we want to do some psychological Christmas-cleaning in our = psyche for a change. Don't hate - (make it a) Love! Love and care. Einar from Iceland. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD4DF.C1B23DA0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiUXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAFHy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAIAAAAEhhdGUgbm90IC0gYnV0IGxvdmUgdGh5 IGVuZW15ISAAdQoBBYADAA4AAADMBwsAEQAXAB8AJAAAAEkBASCAAwAOAAAAzAcLABEAFwAfACQA AABJAQEJgAEAIQAAADExNEVEQzVBOTA0MEQwMTFBMTBENDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAMMGAQOQBgBwBgAA EgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AGCJcXnf1LsBHgBwAAEAAAAg AAAASGF0ZSBub3QgLSBidXQgbG92ZSB0aHkgZW5lbXkhIAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABu9TfeXFlcWvd QLMR0KENREVTVAAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEgAAAGFubmFzYkBpc21l bm50LmlzAAAAAwAGENbJIKgDAAcQSgQAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAE9OMTZOT1ZFTUJFUjE5OTYyMzow OE1BWFdST1RFOklGSVdFUkVNU01BTk5FUlMsSVdPVUxET0ZGRVJUSElTQURWSUNFOkFMV0FZU0hB VEVOT1RBKFdPKU1BTkJVVEhFUi9ISVMAAAAAAgEJEAEAAADzBAAA7wQAAIcIAABMWkZ1qBBOPP8A CgEPAhUCqAXrAoMAUALyCQIAY2gKwHNldDI3BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVtAoMzdwLkBxMC gzQRBRNTD99m9jUSzBTFfQqACM8J2QKABwqBDbELYG5nMTAzxjkK+xdSMjQgCoUKi/BsaTM2DfAL VRRRC/J1E1BvE9BjBUAKhxwbT8cDoQtVFWFzMTYfVyIwoi4gTk5vdhPgYgSQByF/H4Qi0Dk5NiAy cDM6MDgb/SBHHv1N1GF4Jr53H3I6J78fi1xJZiyAKkAEkGUF0HOTIwApIG5uBJBzLCyyYQhgbGQg bw3QBJAgBHRoBAAgYWR2aUZjKpAUsGx3YROwIHMRgBPQIG4fgC8gHNYopS4gKQOCYnUFQGgEkN4v LvIAkACAIwBULvIHgA8GIgIgLRAAwHkgZmn8Z2gFQAPwLuAucC7gLbHXLnAkMAXAaQ2wYQQgCoXz BbEA0HRpAiAt0THCA/CubAMgB0Av02sJ4HAzgt4nMAEzQAAgLnBwCfAu0E5vLtET4CMASG8H4GXy bBGwIGMDkQqFNNExsPMfcTIBaG8EcDGwLRAHkMsBkR4gczIAZD8c7hwbPkULgArBMgEqkAqFV2hP M/AwIzAwN5FsPxzWSv0HkHUwAi5gMLAT0ADQLvD7G0AucSAZICQwLtFAsSzA+S7hbmss0TJwO/Au QgGQ7zgQMKEeIAJAbDOxBbBEUXMGcQhgc2wz8DWxMLBw7HN5EXAZEWcvYAdALyMvEbA54URRC3Bk L5AiTE9DNDPwCfAT4HkiLeB3fy7wEXAzIDQjEbAT4DVwbbRwbwQQaQJgLRAoNIDBNXBzbid0KTb0 BpDPRDMBkDjxNHMiZAIgTED9MBR5CGFJhTVwBUAz0gDA/0UDEbAAgENROYBB0CMIKz//Pc8cuEAg OYAzAkl1LeAAcN8uYEoQLPJUmUEQTUl1VIL/M5JDdRGAQ0EAwA2wMnBUcZcDoFTBRwNlLeB0cgpQ 60EQSGAvPOEvS+MzgUaB+1kUOMFkVUQkYEKyVMEFAP8zQDaiLeBL4UR1PEFZFToQ2y6yULFuT9It 4GpB0DCR/wQgOXFdA0gxHOxW1zqSPEH/RuEtsV1iA5E1gjEwMoFMYf8FsVjgB4BD4kLQJGAZIBtA z0KyOXFJwBGwbGYt4FTB/zKCZoMuoArAZoMu4AhgNDFfM3FO0QRgNqMjAEkDoGbnNoFPUi8CIGQ8 0QrABGDybltTTVlZZUNkLwEFoP9LMEWQE9BGgV9gLaAvcAQQ9wrAVTVB0HVA4UBCBCAwcR9Cozlx TfA0ZDtCIm9i/mpSQU9AQvFbomDDaVEEYP9gATqQEbBgQXAaTfAHkTBy/mswcAfgBbFfYASBPIFV cb9nMzpAQrEvEUDDIwBTb5H7QDVBEFkIYDqDX+N1UUpw8z8gTnsgLTAQOhEBoAhg+wVAQ3IhUR9S L1M/B/AFkfxuYwMQBzA2omn0RwwD8P56CxFtkGvHQvEJ8AWwBGD/QdFLIgAgAHAvcEzFL9ACMOdv RWSyRv1DaAUQE8AAwPhzLWNFkABwQrJZEU6y/2tlAhA2YTqAEYAbQEgwek+ze198byBETgh5MChP 09FL4WEpIEkCIRzsSQP3VWI6kBmQLhzsPwQDUiyA+y9wGyFkhz+IT4lfCt0cfAUYsQCVYAADABAQ AAAAAAMAERABAAAAQAAHMCBSANSf1LsBQAAIMGCJcXnf1LsBHgA9AAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAHEM ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD4DF.C1B23DA0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:29:01 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: <328F9FBD.5DBB@sprynet.com> Art House wrote: > As a person who has been disappointed by organizations, I see > Krishnamurti's point. However, although Truth is eternal and we can all > sit in our houses and meditate for it, there is strength in community. Here's an analogy I came up with, which might be helpful: You are living in, say, New York City. You decide that you climb to the top of Mt. Everest. A person who has managed to walk across the United States, build a raft, get across the Pacific, walk to Tibet, and climb to the top of Mt. Everest without any special equipment states that you don't need plane tickets to Tibet, special equipment, etc. to get to the top of Mt. Everest. Maybe you don't. But it sure does help. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:17:16 -0500 From: Jesús Ernesto Cruz Martínez Subject: Re: THEOS-SPAN digest 41 Message-ID: <328F80DC.372@planet.com.mx> Hola a todos, soy Jesus de la Logia Unidad de Mexico, agradesco la respuesta de Eric, pero ya hemos leido estos libros y los hemos cotejado con otros que nuestra presidenta tiene, hay uno que al parecer, lo escribio Olcott o alguien asi, porque ella solo nos mostro algunas copias, donde se desmiente casi por entero lo que Conny Mendez dice, al parecer, estos textos Metafisicos, hacen mucho alarde del maestro, pero proveen pocos datos fidedignios, aun asi gracias. La pregunta esta en caminada hacia la idea de que si saben algo mas de lo que el escrito de Theos World #6 maneja, creo que es muy interesante, pero algo mas que eso es su punto de vista personal sobre el tema. Por otro lado, Eric, dices que hay muchos sitios de internet, por favor mandame las direcciones para visitarlos y recopilar esta informacion, tambien me dijeron que el Conde esta vivo, de nuevo en europa con otro nombre, sabe alguien de esto? Saludos fraternales... > Hola a todos. > Escribo en relacion al mensaje de Jesus sobre mas informacion del Maestro > St. Germain. Para información mas detallada sobre el maestro estan "Quien es > y Quien fue el Conde St. Germain" y "El Libro de Oro de St. Germain" ambos > de la Coleccion Metafisica Conny Mendez, "Los Siete Rayos" le la Coleccion > Metafisica Ruben Cedeño.Adicionalmente si se tiene acceso al web existen > muchos lugares con informacion de la Jerarquia Espiritual. > > Hasta pronto, > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Eric A. Escalante Panama,R.de Panama From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 22:41:57 -0500 From: Eric Escalante Subject: Web sites Message-ID: <199611180341.WAA19312@ns.sinfo.net> Algunos sitios con informacion de/relacionados con la Jerarquia o St. Germain en especifico son (estoy armando una lista mas amplia): The Summit Lighthouse (St.Germain) http://www.tsl.org/spanish/sp_germain.html Share International (Maitreya) http://www.shareintl.org/Welcome.html Ascencion Research Center (Varios Maestros) http://www.all-natural.com/arc.html Notas sobre ascencion (DJWHAL KHUL) http://www.metatron.se/ascen1.html Eric A. Escalante Panama,R.de Panama From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:49:20 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 729 Message-ID: <199611180049.RAA04275@snowden.micron.net> Mark writes: >(All tits in the air!) Whoa! that may be harder for some of us than others, but I'm with you in spirit! :-} Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:46:01 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: Hate not - but love thy enemy! Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB wrote: > Why hate at all?=20 > Jesus had a teaching of love that I think we should take a little more = > seriously as a psychological advise. He said: "Love thy enemy", which = > might seem impossible (it isn't), but if we start with "don't hate your = > enemy" it may make a sense to us.=20 Einar, But Jesus also said something not so nice about Pharisees. So it may be simply a matter of choice of words. What I meant is loving man's essential self, and hating his personality if appropriate. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:13:30 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Even more sic Message-ID: <961118001329_1183810038@emout06.mail.aol.com> Fear not. Chuck is out here. And I never signal before whipping a u-turn (or my girlfriend for that matter) because it's so much fun to see the other drivers scramble to get out of the way. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:52:25 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: The Integrity of Krishnaji Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961118085304.35ef2d58@mail.eden.com> At 10:11 PM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: >m.k. ramadoss wrote: >> convention. Knowing the integrity of Krishnaji, this speaks for itself. I >> think this piece may be of interest to some on this list. > >Nasty mode on: > Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best >friend's wife? >Nasty mode off. > > ---clip------- > Bart Lidofsky > On the matter of Krishnaji and his physical relationship with Rosalind, here is the latest I have seen in print in a book by Mary Lutyens. It might interest some here. "K gave me his version of how the affair started: Rajagopal had not only condoned it but had manoeuvred it into taking place. When I asked him why they wanted this to happen, he replied unhesitatingly. "To get a hold over me." In the second of two letters K wrote to Rajagopal in 1985 dictated to Mary Zimbalist but not sent because of the lawsuits, he affirms, "You connived, manoeuvred and encouraged that lady and myself"." MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:02:39 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com (by way of ramadoss@eden.com) Subject: TS Annual Fund Solicitation Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961118090318.35ff22b6@mail.eden.com> BY E-MAIL November 18, 1996 To John Algeo President, TSA Dear Bro: Algeo; I just received the Appeal for donation towards the TSA Annual Fund (which is matched by Kern Foundation.) I am very pleased to tell you that I am very happy to see Internet mentioned as one of the items. I would like to know how the Fund money is planned to be divvied between various programs mentioned in the flyer sent to all members. Can you please send me the details and any budget that has been developed for it. With fraternal Greetings -- Fraternally, MK Ramadoss Member, TSA, San Antonio Lodge From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:03:55 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Mahatma Letter No. 6 Message-ID: The text of this letter has been compressed into the file Mahat006.zip and placed in the HISTORY directory of the web page below. This is the letter mentioned in "Koot Hoomi Unveiled" by Arthur Lillie in 1884, and the subject of the "Kiddle Letter" quoted by Lillie. A service for Theosophy International (or International Theosophy). Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Nov 96 17:31:08 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: What is worthwhile? Message-ID: <961118223107_74024.3352_BHT251-2@CompuServe.COM> I get the feeling that Krishnamurti possibly could have been finding his running of an organization and people's grand expectations of him to be too much, and that also influenced his dissolution of the organization. However, it is pretty presumptuous of him to think that it is in his power to set all of us "absolutely, unconditionally free." TTT Keith: A wake up call perhaps for many of us TTT. I think Krishnamurti was having greatness "forced" on him and wasn't sure he wanted to live up to the PATH others like AB and Leadbeatter had so carefully set out for him. He wanted to be free. He felt his own call to greatness after or during his brother's illness and death. He was genuinely reborn into a new awareness of the greatness and limitation of being merely human and trying to be a spiritual LEADER. But somebody will lead and some will follow. That bumper sticker, lead, follow or get out or the way __ I hate it, because it is some kind of moral, practical and ultimately "spiriutal" imperative in that we are forced to make choices - we will exercise what little free will we have by: 1. trying to lead, convince, cajole, exhort, manipulate, influence etc. 2. willing to chose to follow someone or something we hope will lead us in a worthwhile direction, or 2. 3. submiting to fate and "willy-nilly" (Hey, I like that term!) get run over, duped, used, crushed, victimized (but not escape one iota, not one pinch, not one soucon, not one shitty particle of KARMIC responsibility. Leaders have to take the heat, even if it is openly "mean-spirited", ad hominen, cheap, dirty, cruel, viscious, racist, sexist, childish, and all the other things we learned in kindergarten. All I ever needed to know I learned in kindergarten: the good, the bad and the ugly! Leaders at what ever level like Krishnamurti, John ALgeo, HPB, Jesus, Buddha, Bill Clinton have accepted the fact that they will be abused and hated (unfairly even) sometimes. Jesus wasn't psychic so much as realistic in thinking that they would hunt him down and kill him if he claimed to be homo superior, more evolved, above the law etc. Which brings up the question, if you really were enlightened, wouldn't you just chop wood, carry water, gaze at the tree in the garden, walk on and keep your mouth shut! I guess that is the difference between being enlightened and being filled with Necessity to feel and create art, even if it is bad art. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 01:27:16 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Her husband made us do it Message-ID: <32917D6F.618D@earthlink.net> >When I asked him why they wanted this to happen, he replied unhesitatingly. "To get a hold over me." Might be a little difficult to set "all men unconditionally free" when you yourself are being so held. Was that supposed to excuse him? Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:15:06 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: In message <328F9FBD.5DBB@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >You are living in, say, New York City. You decide that you climb to the >top of Mt. Everest. A person who has managed to walk across the United >States, build a raft, get across the Pacific, walk to Tibet, and climb >to the top of Mt. Everest without any special equipment states that you >don't need plane tickets to Tibet, special equipment, etc. to get to the >top of Mt. Everest. Maybe you don't. > > But it sure does help. Which is one reason some of us set up TI - it helps to provide a "place to belong" regardless of other organisational affiliations. We have TSA members, members of non-TSA organisations, and members from no organisation at all. Just a common interest in helping theosophical study and integrity move into the next century. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:12:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Integrity of Krishnaji Message-ID: <3291A447.7F2C@sprynet.com> ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > At 10:11 PM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: > >m.k. ramadoss wrote: > >> convention. Knowing the integrity of Krishnaji, this speaks for itself. I > >> think this piece may be of interest to some on this list. > > > >Nasty mode on: > > Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best > >friend's wife? > >Nasty mode off. > > > > ---clip------- > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > On the matter of Krishnaji and his physical relationship with Rosalind, here > is the latest I have seen in print in a book by Mary Lutyens. It might > interest some here. > > "K gave me his version of how the affair started: Rajagopal had not > only condoned it but had manoeuvred it into taking place. When I asked him > why they wanted this to happen, he replied unhesitatingly. "To get a hold > over me." In the second of two letters K wrote to Rajagopal in 1985 dictated > to Mary Zimbalist but not sent because of the lawsuits, he affirms, "You > connived, manoeuvred and encouraged that lady and myself"." Which confirms my real point (not quoted in your message): Krishnamurti was quite human, with human frailties. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Nov 96 15:36:53 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: News we can use Message-ID: <961119203652_74024.3352_BHT163-6@CompuServe.COM> n the matter of Krishnaji and his physical relationship with Rosalind, here is the latest I have seen in print in a book by Mary Lutyens. It might interest some here. "K gave me his version of how the affair started: Rajagopal had not only condoned it but had manoeuvred it into taking place. When I asked him why they wanted this to happen, he replied unhesitatingly. "To get a hold over me." In the second of two letters K wrote to Rajagopal in 1985 dictated to Mary Zimbalist but not sent because of the lawsuits, he affirms, "You connived, manoeuvred and encouraged that lady and myself"." Keith: Ah-ah! Now the crystal ball becomes less cracked, but still cloudy. I think this is the achilles heel of all "spiritual" leaders and politicians too. They are being controlled by those around them by their human need for physical love and are after all out there GIVING, GIVING, GIVING. Being sucked dry by their bakti yogettes and devotees. Of course, divinely love is inexhautable, but a spiritual leader is just a channel, a conduit and not DIVINE LOVE itself, despite what a lot of their own GOOD PRESS godspells like the BIBLE, KORAN, GATAS, GETCHAS, SUTRAS, and ICONS. I say again if he did all that, I suprised it wasn't worse. Mary Magdelene sings: "I don't know how to love him?" It is more art from our own time, but poignantly puts the pitfalls of the path. Who are helping the Master and who are out for a cheap thrill? No wonder KH and DK and Moryia where so loathe to stay in incarnation for long periods of time. Sun glasses, and ganster tinted limos wheren't the rage in HPB"s day. They had to walk like the rest of us, touch the ground and SMILE. Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:31:18 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: love thine enemy Message-ID: <199611192040.PAA17001@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >What I meant is loving man's essential self, and hating his personality >if appropriate. > How about "Hate the deed, and love the doer" M.L. King Jr. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:36:05 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Integrity of Krishnamurti Message-ID: <199611192045.PAA17518@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >>Nasty mode on: >> Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best >>friend's wife? >>Nasty mode off. GOOD GOD, ANOTHER ONE! For a spiritual group, methinks we have an inordinate amount of mud slingers. How's that for raising people's consciousness? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Nov 96 16:12:16 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Personality Plus Message-ID: <961119211216_74024.3352_BHT163-10@CompuServe.COM> I won't say who, but the general concensus is that I am acting giddy and out of character, but I have always been pretty strange. Others post strange, cryptic, "in-joke" humor all the time. I am sure I could psycholanalyze and play doctor, and I probably will. Anyway. I will try to let others get a word in edgewise so to speak. But sense we are talking about senesibility, what is the personality of a really spiritual person, what do we expect? We have talked about it before, why not again Some thoughts; 1; Jesus is portrayed in the orthodox gospels as crabby, pissed off at everybody. I mean what can you say about a guy who tells the Virgin Mary: "get out of my face girl, you aren't my mother. I am about my FATHER's business, get back to cooking and cleaning" (I am using my memory to paraphrase, of course). He was pissed off a the pharasies, the saints, and the crowd in general that were alway pressing in on Him for a Healing and to get fed bread and fishes. The guy was a sarcastic commentator that rarely called it straight, but talked in thinly disguised or thickly sometimes PARABLES. The gnostic gospels have a completely differnent picture of a man who loved life, danced with men and women, and didn't ake it all so seriolsy-- Which picture do you think is OUR MAN? 2. Buddha changed with a massive enatiaodroma as Jung might say. A big u-turn from rich prince and playball to ascetic, to Madyamika lassez fair, let them eat cake and shake lotuses (LOTI?) and laugh. He was rarely pissed-off from what I can tell! 3. Mohamed, which I haven't studied his BIO if he has one, seem pretty spacey, I mean, flying a horse, a talking Horse like Mr. Ed, to heaven and talking about Holy Wars. I don't know if I would like to live next door to Him, but he could work at the Stop-and-Go, and I would never know! 4. Krishnamurti, hey he was a lovable grip like the rest of them after all is said and done. 4. Gahdi didn't like to clean the toilet or did he? 5. Mother Teresa I am heard has a lot of peevishness about getting more done quicker, but she has a good husband after all! 6. John ALgeo - I have been owing him an apology, I know. I've said more good than bad about the man. I like the picture in AT too. He has a pleasant voice over the phone. He like the WIZARD OF OZ, so he must be OK. AND to some it up, he isn't vaugely Capricorn, but I was just going to point out that Capricorn is the most exalted on signs and begins the cyle of esoteric initiation from some of the Ancient Systems of spiritual astrology. (I be I STILL can't go to Krotona) Namaste Keith Price. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:43:56 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: love thine enemy Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > >What I meant is loving man's essential self, and hating his personality > >if appropriate. > > > How about "Hate the deed, and love the doer" M.L. King Jr. I did not know MLK said that, but I agree it. Thanks for the information. Max From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:47:42 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Personality Plus Message-ID: <3292552E.19CD@eden.com> joseph k price wrote: > (I be I STILL can't go to Krotona) Is there any particular program that you have been trying to go to with a scholarship? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Nov 96 15:18:21 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: THEOS-ROOTS digest 236 Message-ID: <961119201820_74024.3352_BHT163-3@CompuServe.COM> Dear Alan: I am upgrading so as to get in WWW. I will be able to surf to TI etc. Surf's up, are you? Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:29:49 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: A now for something completely serious - Theosophy of Art Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961119072513.0068f618@mail.deltanet.com> Chuck: >I fear a Theosophy of Art would be the same as a Theosophy of anything else. > Pompous, arrogant, boring, out of date before it was created and totally >ignored by everyone else. >(it must be the weather) I don't think that Theosophy can give to you something that you don't already have. Theosophy is paradoxically a lens to see the world better with, and a mirror to see deep into one's own eyes. Often our descriptions of it have more to say about ourselves than about the philosophy. There are attempts to relate Theosophy to art. In the Los Angeles area there's the theosophical art coop (TACO]. And isn't there something associated with the Theosophical Order of Service? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:30:08 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961119074531.0068f618@mail.deltanet.com> Chuck: >Maybe it's the coming of winter or the remnants of my cold, but I keep >getting this feeling that TRUTH may not be all that it's cracked up to be. Perhaps you're mixing levels. There's abstract, absolute TRUTH, which is immutable, changeless, and not directly related to the world. And there's the truth as it attempts to come forth in our world of approximations, a truth made imperfect because of the imperfect nature of existence. > It seems to be either inaccessible or, once found, hopelessly boring. I'd say that both kinds of truth are accessible, although the absolute version cannot be directly realized in external life. When it is applied, it becomes less-than-perfect and turns into the relative truth, the second kind of truth. As to being boring, things can be exciting, sexy, fascinating, and alluring, or boring, banal, devoid of meaning, depending on our state of mind. In itself, truth is netural; its meaning and value is something that comes from us, from our relationship to it. > I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that an entertaining lie is >better than a boring truth any day of the week. The theosophical philosophy is not "a boring truth". Nor is it "an entertaining lie". If the way that you think about things and the approach to life you have taken seems boring, and other approachings are entertaining, perhaps your heart is telling you that it's time to change directions, to take a different approach. That doesn't pass judgement on Theosophy, it simply says "it's time to move on." We're each responsibe to follow our hearts, to go where the deeper meaning and connectedness to life can be found. A period of boredom can indicate a possible change, though this is not always the case. Sometimes boredom indicates a plateau, where one needs to try something new, in order to move forward. That's different than simply changing to something different. >Does this qualify me to run for the TS board of directors? No. It indicates a period where you might cut back and focus more on inner reflection. That's the opposite of a period where you'd play a key role in sharing the treasures that you may find in a "theosophical goldmine." I'd hope the directors would be individuals that are excited about sharing the philosophy. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 02:43:21 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: love thine enemy Message-ID: <01BBD68D.32860F80@rvik-ppp-218.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD68D.328DB0A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lisel sent: >What I meant is loving man's essential self, and hating his personality = >if appropriate.=20 > How about "Hate the deed, and love the doer" M.L. King Jr. Einar here:=20 Personally I put a ? to all "hate", at least seen from a psychological = point of view. Hate means war in the Psyche, as I understand the word, but to my = limited understanding it is HARMONY we need in there, which seems more = in the line of love and compassion than hate. Essentially it should be in our power to decide what feeling we carry = inside. I would like to point out that loving a person (i.e. having warm = compassionate feelings towards him/her) doesn't mean that we don't see = him/her or the act as it is, or that we have to accept it as right. The = hate weils our sight, seeing (understanding), which is love, clears it Personally I would have paraphrased the statement of Martin like this: Understand (the background of) the deed, and you will (automatically) = love the doer! I know it is hard to do, but it pays off thousand times! Love and care. Einar from Iceland ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD68D.328DB0A0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IikCAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAFHy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAEQAAAGxvdmUgdGhpbmUgZW5lbXkALAYBBYAD AA4AAADMBwsAFAACACsAFQADADcBASCAAwAOAAAAzAcLABQAAgArABUAAwA3AQEJgAEAIQAAAERE OTFFMDkyNjc0MkQwMTFBMTBENDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAMMGAQOQBgAkBQAAEgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAm AAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AGCm/5eM1rsBHgBwAAEAAAARAAAAbG92ZSB0aGluZSBl bmVteQAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABu9aMl/+S4JHhQmcR0KENREVTVAAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABT TVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEgAAAGFubmFzYkBpc21lbm50LmlzAAAAAwAGEMrrh2IDAAcQRgMAAB4A CBABAAAAZQAAAExJU0VMU0VOVDpXSEFUSU1FQU5USVNMT1ZJTkdNQU5TRVNTRU5USUFMU0VMRixB TkRIQVRJTkdISVNQRVJTT05BTElUWUlGQVBQUk9QUklBVEVIT1dBQk9VVCJIQVRFVEhFREUAAAAA AgEJEAEAAAC0AwAAsAMAAGUGAABMWkZ1DgVpPv8ACgEPAhUCqAXrAoMAUALyCQIAY2gKwHNldDI3 BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVtAoMztwLkBxMCgzQSzBTFfQqAPwjPCdkCgAqBDbELYG5nMDEw MzkK+xViMjTqIAqFTAQAZQMgEbACMMI6CotsaTM2DfALVVcUUQvyE1BvE9BjBUA+5lcRgAVASSAH gABwBUDVBAAgFzB2C4BnHxAAcD4nBCAHkBvCBzEbsWxmZCwgAHBkIB7BH+JoNR+BcASQcwIgB0Bp dNp5GuY+BpAhcHAeIRNQmwcwE9AuIycKhUhvB+AnAaAIYAVAIkgkYSB0fmgmgA2wCYAhZB+xJoVv pQSQIgXQLkwkkEsf4vhKci4Khx1aGuYZvxrBXkULgArBJrAXoDoa5lAtIoVsIxAfAHAmEWEgej8m kG8hcC3wJjAewWX2IiFhBUBsHzATwBuxCfDGIANSLoFwc3kRcBchyGdpYyDxcG8LgAVA/m8jwB/Q B9ApNiZTHyIEIK53CsELgCaTUDEiZSFh+wQgHwB1IZAigQGQIZEmorZ3BbAnEWImES7RbSMQ/Rzg bSLwCYA1aR/iIvAfcoBIQVJNT05ZM+C9JoBuJvE0JRegIWB3IjD7EXAwQm0EIARgF6A0Jhzg3znQ MkIngyGCBaBtKtAEEL5pAiAmkQORL1IpNkUglksuATjBczFQdWwhoGJ/O7MIYTHhOaAFwC7RBYFp 9w2wOrEe0WYJ4DxBIAA5ofkxsHJyP7EAgQ2wKTYfAPc2YEAyHOBrJoEu4DH1NtIPHsIftTDiIoMg KGku/ySBEYAf0zPxMNA9WCZiQmU3BCAu0DPxZAQgIjBtL/UssSkoAnMgQAVAHyJF5P85oSgQSzIw UUpWMkBBUSax/wDQLnEEIDjDIWBNY0vkR7HzRQMA0GNlBTE4wTUhBRDoZ2h0JJBUJrEvUjmR/wMQ BCBA0gCQUNEhYDBRH+K6KDfrKTqmH4Q08WMv8f8RoDixKqUtH0RHT2Mq0SPg/mhYQBGwNgQ1wRPR G9EyQn5NCsAh4UTFIjEcBiqlVdU1iCgmomIA0GsJwAhg7yGRMlBK0CaseQhgM+ADEPkDIChhJhAD cSDQMbEuAJtK0CeLIVXMHwBrbiWx7zjEEYE2AUGBbzakOMEq0N8TsDJBI8AmoAhgczXjB3L9YR1M PNcKwD6HPqYsYzCj9klQABkxZBwfHS0a5iqv/xpfab8dn21/bocahG9+FsECAHNAAwAQEAAAAAAD ABEQAAAAAEAABzAgtms4iNa7AUAACDBgpv+XjNa7AR4APQABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAASjw== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD68D.328DB0A0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:20:03 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: What is worthwhile? Message-ID: In message <961118223107_74024.3352_BHT251-2@CompuServe.COM>, joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> writes >Which brings up the question, if you really were enlightened, wouldn't you just >chop wood, carry water, gaze at the tree in the garden, walk on and keep your >mouth shut! I think you are right here, Keith. However, in the Xtian tradition (with which I am most familiar), the "better mousetrap" still seems to operate. Some holy man gets enlightened, goes off into the desert or into the mountains to sit in a cave alone, and the bastards find him and want to be taught. Because he cares, he teaches, gets famous, and (maybe) wishes he weren't so enlightened. And while I think of it, this has been the case with a few women as well, notwithstanding the *heavy* patriarchialism of Christianity. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:28:55 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A now for something completely serious - Theosophy of Art Message-ID: <961120002854_705229627@emout09.mail.aol.com> Eldon, Actually, that was the point I was trying to make. When you try to pigeonhole anything and then call it Theosophical, all you succeed in doing is putting your own gloss on it and then giving it a big name. That was the mistake our early leaders made and we can see the results to this day. And the weather isn't helping. The continuous gloom is affecting even my normally happy nature. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:31:31 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: <961120003130_604593730@emout03.mail.aol.com> Eldon, Actually, I think I'm just going through one of my periods of extreme skepticism about everything that I get every few years. It's been a rough year. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:06:22 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: A story Message-ID: <199611200706.AAA20051@snowden.micron.net> Liesel wrote: >For a spiritual group, methinks we have an inordinate amount of mud slingers. >How's that for raising people's consciousness? I offer a story, which in my opinion, may address this: ******** "There comes now an interesting passage in the life of the Buddha and this history of philosophic religion. About this time his foster-mother, she who had nourished him after the death of his mother, sent to the World-Honored a message from herself, from Yashodara and from other great ladies. It was to this effect: "Full of hindrances is the household life, very free the life of the homeless for such as would walk in the Way! Let the Blissful One permit that women also retire to the peace of the homeless life, under the discipline taught by the Lord." But he returned no answer: and a second time they asked, believing that women have much need of the Peace. His foster-mother Prajapati herself came and made this request with tears, and he answered: "Enough, lady. Do not make this request." So wandering and teaching he came to Vaishali, and Prajapati with shorn hair and yellow robes, followed by many of the Shakya ladies, journeyed there on foot and waited in the porch of the Pagoda Hall, very sorrowful. There the beloved disciple Ananda, cousin of the Buddha, met them and seeing their feet cut and bleeding from travel, and their faces covered with dust and tears, asked the reason. Having heard all he went to the Buddha and besought for these women and was refused. Again and yet again he besought--in vain. But pity urged Ananda to perserverance, and he said: "Lord, if women retire to the homeless life, is it possible for them to attain Arahatship [the higher consciousness]? Escaping from sorrow can they reach this?" And he in who is all truth answered: "They can attain." Then Ananda gladdened (his name means Joy), and he said: "Then let the Blessed One think of the Lady Prajapati! She is sister to the mother of the Blessed One, and at her breast he was nourished. Let them be admitted. If they can thus end sorrow, should it not be permitted?" And the Buddha answered: "I cannot refuse. If they will accept eight weighty rules in addition to those accepted by the Order and will be subject to the Order it shall be reckoned to them for ordination." And when, standing patiently, they heard this, sorrow passed from them and with joy they accepted the Rules. Later, the Buddha meditating said: "If, Ananda, women had not accepted ordination under my discipline [my] religion would have endured a thousand years in India. Now even with the eight weighty regulations it shall not endure." (Beck, L. Adam, The Story of Oriental Philosophy, pp.143-144) *********** My interpretation of the moral of this story: You can say really dumb things, say things that hurt people's feelings, and say things that are clearly wrong. . .and still be a really, super cool human being. And be a really, super cool "spiritual" discussion list, too. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:05:02 +0100 From: "Kim Poulsen" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letter No. 6 Message-ID: <199611201311.IAA19122@elvis.vnet.net> >A service for Theosophy International (or International Theosophy). A very appreciated service that is. I hope you will keep up the steam to do letters 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16. (But how about 59, I wonder? :-) These files are immensely helpful during word-searches, and having long ago tried (and given up on) typing relevant passages and later scan them (with a useless hand-scanner) I appreciate the effort involved. In friendship, Kim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:26:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Integrity of Krishnamurti Message-ID: <513IOAAABlkyEwle@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199611192045.PAA17518@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. deutsch" writes >>>Nasty mode on: >>> Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best >>>friend's wife? >>>Nasty mode off. > >GOOD GOD, ANOTHER ONE! > >For a spiritual group, methinks we have an inordinate amount of mud slingers. >How's that for raising people's consciousness? > >Liesel > While I sympathise with Liesel's sentiment here, I feel that it is important to raise (again, I know) the question that the value we place upon the work of those who seek or have sought to lead or guide us can sometimes be affected by the extent to which they are seen to practice what they preach. I know nothing of this story, but clearly the implication is that JK may have slipped from his own standards at some point. So, no doubt, do we all - I know I have - and clearly due allowance should be made for human frailties and weaknesses. Having said that, if I find that a revered teacher has lied to me (say) then how can I trust other things the teacher has told me? The standard teaching on this is simple: don't do it at all; work to verify what you are taught for yourself, and if you obtain a different result, then say so. Theosophy, for me, is not about following a leader, or adopting a teaching as if it were a creed or a religion - a view shared, I am sure, by HPB - but an attempt to guide us towards a greater understanding or reality on the basis that there is no religion higher than truth. Those who went before us were fallible, as we are fallible. They were not gods any more than we are. Sadly, all too many people in the history of the theosophical movement have treated them as if they were, if not gods, then saints. Because of this, when their shortcomings are brought to light, it can come as something of a shock. When faced from time to time - as has often been the case since I signed up for theos-l - with a most extraordinary kind of "Theosophical Fundamentalism" then the historical facts behind the life and work of those who have gone before us becomes a relevant issue. The important thing, IMO, after having viewed the evidence and the claims and the teachings in their various forms, is the validity or otherwise of the teaching itself. As a brief example, we can consider whether or not an out of the body experience is what it is purported to be by those who claim that such a thing is possible. If we *really* want to *know* then we will need to learn how to have one ourselves. Two or three would be even better. There ain't no short cuts nor any quick fixes in this work. Must be about 20 cents worth there ... With goodwill to all, Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:39:07 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Integrity of Krishnamurti Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message <199611192045.PAA17518@ultra1.dreamscape.com>, "liesel f. > deutsch" writes > >>>Nasty mode on: > >>> Was the convention before or after Jiddu started bopping his best > >>>friend's wife? > >>>Nasty mode off. > > > >GOOD GOD, ANOTHER ONE! > > > >For a spiritual group, methinks we have an inordinate amount of mud slingers. > >How's that for raising people's consciousness? > > > >Liesel > > > While I sympathise with Liesel's sentiment here, I feel that it is > important to raise (again, I know) the question that the value we place > upon the work of those who seek or have sought to lead or guide us can > sometimes be affected by the extent to which they are seen to practice > what they preach. I know nothing of this story, but clearly the > implication is that JK may have slipped from his own standards at some > point. The issue relating to JK has been dealt head on in the recent book by Mary Lutyens. I will be posting a partial review soon. Keep tuned. It is going to be interesting to many. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 10:07:19 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <199611201507.KAA29244@leo.vsla.edu> The recent discussions about Krishnamurti's justification of his affair with Rosalind, and John Algeo's review of The White Buddhist, are both indicative of the degree to which discourse in Theosophical circles is ideological in nature. That is, the priority is not to discover the truth but rather to make facts fit into our preexisting mental framework. I have been told, by an editor of a Theosophical journal, of a friend who reluctantly withdrew a review of the Sloss book he had written (for another journal, in England) upon pleas from Lutyens to do so. Result-- one less way for the public to become aware of Sloss's charges; this represents according to my informant part of a systematic effort to keep Sloss's book as unknown as possible. The high-handed dismissals and personal attacks on me for even bringing it up recently, when Doss forwarded a post on the subject to a Krishnamurti-ite list show me that there is no more openness to new perspectives on K. in that camp than there has been among Theosophists lately regarding HPB. Now, apparently, Lutyens has decided to counterattack, and the accusation is that Krishnamurti was seduced by a woman whose husband encouraged this as a means of gaining control over him. The credibility of this charge remains to be seen, but I doubt that Lutyens comes across as plausibly as Sloss. I was amused to read that Kym found John A.'s Quest review of The White Buddhist to be "subtly scathing." My reaction to it was quite opposite-- envy frankly-- "Why wasn't he as generous and even-handed with me, a member?" There wasn't anything subtle about the scathing nature of his TMR reviews. As to whether or not it is appropriate for a section president to attack people's books, who knows? I felt it was inappropriate for someone who had been involved in TPH's decision not to publish mine (as Algeo was) to then review it scathingly when someone else published it. But there are no rule books about these things. If there were, and I could contribute to it, I'd suggest this: neither the section head nor the international president are needed or wanted as ideological spokesman/woman for the TS, and yet they both seem to have definite ideologies, not shared with most members, that they are subtly and not-so-subtly striving to promote. If they choose to review relevant books, no problem. But when they use their authority and status as role models in order to promote contempt and hostility toward authors (as in my case) or to encourage members to completely ignore books (as in Tillett's) then something is seriously wrong. Ideological correctness trumps any even-handed consideration of alternative views. "No religion higher than truth" has lost most or not all meaning in the Theosophical world, and the Krishamurti-ites don't seem to be any more successful at exemplifying it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:20:12 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <32932FB9.AA8@earthlink.net> > "No religion > higher than truth" has lost most or not all meaning in the Theosophical > world, and the Krishamurti-ites don't seem to be any more successful at > exemplifying it. Indeed, as written by K.H. : THE 1900 LETTER ... 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. ... Beware of an Esoteric Popery. ... ...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. Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use happily given P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:48:38 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <32935286.2DB3@eden.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > I have been told, by an editor of a Theosophical journal, of a > friend who reluctantly withdrew a review of the Sloss book he had > written (for another journal, in England) upon pleas from > Lutyens to do so. Result-- one less way for the public to become > aware of Sloss's charges; this represents according to my > informant part of a systematic effort to keep Sloss's book as > unknown as possible. The high-handed dismissals and personal > attacks on me for even bringing it up recently, when Doss forwarded a > post on the subject to a Krishnamurti-ite list show me that there is no more > openness to new perspectives on K. in that camp than there has been > among Theosophists lately regarding HPB. Now, apparently, Lutyens has > decided to counterattack, and the accusation is that > Krishnamurti was seduced by a woman whose husband encouraged > this as a means of gaining control over him. The credibility > of this charge remains to be seen, but I doubt that Lutyens > comes across as plausibly as Sloss. I have just browsed the book by Lutyens. It appears she has done a good job of dealing with most of the issues and facts and conclusions reached by Sloss in her book. As a matter of fact, she had addressed the issue of K's relationship with Rosalind Rajagopal Sloss in page 1 of the book. Also addressed is the "spiritual" model per "Leadbeater-Theosophy" and that of K's. I will try to post further when I am able to read the book. As for posting your msg to Listening-l, that is where all the scholars of Krishnamurti are. It appears that there are many over there who have read every word that has been in print regarding K. So I personally do not see any problem with it. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:39:01 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letter No. 6 Message-ID: In message <199611201311.IAA19122@elvis.vnet.net>, Kim Poulsen writes >>A service for Theosophy International (or International Theosophy). > >A very appreciated service that is. I hope you will keep up the steam >to do letters 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16. (But how about 59, I wonder? :-) >These files are immensely helpful during word-searches, and having long >ago tried (and given up on) typing relevant passages and later scan them >(with >a useless hand-scanner) I appreciate the effort involved. > >In friendship, > >Kim When I get round to it, I want to complete the letters up to number nine, as some early ones and the famous number ten are already in the zip file on the web site. Maybe then I will make a single zip for one to ten, and then start with eleven, etc., etc. BTW, I saw a "Key to Theosophy" link on one of the Theosophical Web pages, but cannot recall which one. Eldon? Maybe I could add a link to this and then free up some space on the TI page, where there is another copy. We could save web space this way by sharing resources, especially if web sites mentioned also put in a link to the TI page. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:37:55 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Integrity of Krishnamurti Message-ID: <961120143754_1083537857@emout15.mail.aol.com> There are certain advantages to being a heretic. One of them is being able to say, with a straight face, that having no morals myself, I am not going to waste my time worrying about the morals of others. If Krishnamurti's ideas are of value, it is utterly irrelevant who he slept with. After all, he had to have some fun. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:40:29 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <961120144028_1883318982@emout19.mail.aol.com> I must confess to being puzzled by this whole brohaha. Sex is fun. Why should Krishnamurti or his followers feel a need to justify him enjoying his life? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:41:46 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <32937B17.18E9@earthlink.net> > I must confess to being puzzled by this whole brohaha. Sex is fun. Why > should Krishnamurti or his followers feel a need to justify him enjoying his > life? If you read "The Secret Doctrine" you will find that it was just such fun which brought an end to Lemuria (read Sodom & Gomorha). Sex is a difficult issue but one which is resolvable as the New Era dawns. - P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:58:53 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > > I must confess to being puzzled by this whole brohaha. Sex is fun. Why > > should Krishnamurti or his followers feel a need to justify him enjoying his > > life? > > If you read "The Secret Doctrine" you will find that it was just > such fun which brought an end to Lemuria (read Sodom & Gomorha). Sex is > a difficult issue but one which is resolvable as the New Era dawns. > K did address the issue of sex and chastity in some of his talks. It may come as a suprise that his approach is revolutionary in that it is opposite to "Leadbeater-Theosophy" model for spiritual progress. I will be posting more on this later when I find time. Keep tune and you will not regret it. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:19:04 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Announcing the publication of K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? Message-ID: <199611210319.UAA24490@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Announcing the publication of K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? I have just published a new 43 page paper titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? The subtitle reads: "A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi." The paper has a two page appendix by David Reigle. The paper takes a serious, detailed look at Johnson's thesis. Johnson's conjectures on these two Masters are shown to be highly implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in light of all the known testimony and evidence. Primary source documents are quoted IN DETAIL. If anyone on Theos-l is interested in a copy of this paper, please e-mail me for more details. Electronic copies will soon be posted on the Internet in various formats including a copy on the WWW. Daniel H. Caldwell blafoun@azstarnet.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:22:26 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Announcing the publication of K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? Message-ID: <199611210322.UAA25170@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Announcing the publication of K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? I have just published a new 43 page paper titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS? The subtitle reads: "A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi." The paper has a two page appendix by David Reigle. My paper takes a serious, detailed look at Johnson's thesis. Johnson's conjectures on these two Masters are shown to be highly implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in light of all the known testimony and evidence. Primary source documents are quoted IN DETAIL. If anyone is interested in a copy of this paper, please e-mail me for more details. Electronic copies will soon be posted on the Internet in various formats including a copy on the WWW. Daniel H. Caldwell blafoun@azstarnet.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:45:45 -0500 From: Jesús Ernesto Cruz Martínez Subject: Hola chicos!! Message-ID: <32939829.468F@planet.com.mx> Hola a todos los del foro: Gracias a Eric, no he revisado aún estos lugares que me diste, lo haré en los siguientes días, de todas formas muchas gracias, por otro lado, he estado comunicándome con una persona que se llama Eduardo Gómez, éste tiene una página en el Internet que está en http://www.inforamp.net/~ego/esp/start.htm, veánla, se llama Atma Net, parece que es una persona con la que se puede platicar de muchas cosas, no estoy seguro si es estudiante de teosofía, pero vale la pena, por favor hablen más en el foro, no lo dejen morir. Adiós... -- ------------------------------------------ Jesús Ernesto Cruz Martínez jecruz@planet.com.mx http://www.planet.com.mx/~unidad/index.htm La ciencia nos enseña una manera nueva de pensar, la religión una nueva de sentir: Bertrand Russell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:25:59 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <961121002558_2048240328@emout10.mail.aol.com> Hey, if the world is going to come to an end, at least let's have some fun in the process. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:28:53 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <961121002851_1950516432@emout13.mail.aol.com> Doss, The older I get, the more I am convinced that chastity is a manifestation of profound mental illness. If Krishnamurti got to make whoopee occassionally, well, good for him. He deserved it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:46:32 -0600 (CST) From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961121004716.299f814a@mail.eden.com> The question of celibacy, sex and chastity and Krishnamurti's views on these issues has been brought to focus on account of Sloss's book which focused on K's physical relationship with Rosalind. The most elegant presentation of K's views is found in Mary Lutyens' latest book. I am quoting the relevant parts: "As for it being a secret affair, was K supposed to go about saying that Rosalind was his mistress? It was her concern as well as his. And he never "presented" himself as being a celibate. According to the tenets of Leadbeater-Theosophy, celibacy was essential for any aspirant to the Path of Descipleship but K broke away entirely from Theosophy and its tenets in 1929 and thereafter often spoke publicly *against* celibacy. Here are a few quotations from his published talks to prove this point: "So-called holy men have maintained that you cannot come near God if you indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But in denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because beauty is associated with woman." And again: "I think we should understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not chastity at all, for below the words the craving goes on and trying to impress it in different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and denials, is essentially worldliness which is unchaste. All forms of resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a battlefield; and so life becomes not chaste at all." And again, "To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then there is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one issue which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that act there is no self at all." And the above presents K's views on the above issues. It is for each one of us to ponder over the whole question and come to our own conclusion, if we can. After all a true Theosophist has as his/her motto "There is No Religion Higher than Truth" and all of us who are searching for Truth will have to find out for ourself, first hand, IMHO. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:38:41 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Theosophy of Art Message-ID: <3293EADD.6057@earthlink.net> Eldon wrote: Can anyone provide further information on these efforts? Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:57:03 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: In message <32932FB9.AA8@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes >Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use >happily given > >P It seems you are claiming copyright in a work which has long been in the public domain - surely I am wrong in this? Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Nov 21 06:44:38 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Krish and Copulation Message-ID: <199611211144.GAA08419@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >Doss, >The older I get, the more I am convinced that chastity is a manifestation of >profound mental illness. If Krishnamurti got to make whoopee occassionally, >well, good for him. He deserved it. > >Chuck the Heretic The act of sex is very uplifting. I think most will agree with that. But more often than not, it is the consequences of the act which inhibit spiritual growth, and not the act itself. In Krishnamurti's case, the woman was married, and the consequences of his alleged sex with her: i.e. the angry husband, the guilt, and (if it is true that the husband planned the seduction) the anger toward himself (for not getting to know the woman a little better) and toward the scheming husband ( for his deception ). However, logically, I would have to agree that there is nothing wrong with sex, as long as similar consequences do not follow. Often, the pleasure gained in one night can lead to problems which can last for years. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Nov 21 07:09:10 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Truth Message-ID: <199611211209.HAA09263@envirolink.org> >After all a true Theosophist has as his/her motto "There is No Religion >Higher than Truth" and all of us who are searching for Truth will have to >find out for ourself, first hand, IMHO. > >MK Ramadoss Agreed:)...I employ this same idea for myself, however i do sometimes forget that this goes for everyone. At times I find myself thinking that, because I have found my own truths in this way, I can save others time, as well as trials, by showing them what I have found. Often I come across too forcibly, and equally as often, I let my emotions get the best of me. Particularly with regards to Alan and some of his statements. *laugh* Perhaps it is good that he inspires me so, but I fear that it may be at the expense of his own emotions. But now I'm getting off of the subject. I'll write more on this later. Suddenly, it seems an appropriate topic. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 06:47:36 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, John Straughn wrote: > >After all a true Theosophist has as his/her motto "There is No Religion > >Higher than Truth" and all of us who are searching for Truth will have to > >find out for ourself, first hand, IMHO. > > > >MK Ramadoss > > Agreed:)...I employ this same idea for myself, however i do sometimes forget > that this goes for everyone. At times I find myself thinking that, because I > have found my own truths in this way, I can save others time, as well as > trials, by showing them what I have found. Often I come across too forcibly, > and equally as often, I let my emotions get the best of me. Particularly with > regards to Alan and some of his statements. *laugh* Perhaps it is good that > he inspires me so, but I fear that it may be at the expense of his own > emotions. But now I'm getting off of the subject. I'll write more on this > later. Suddenly, it seems an appropriate topic. IMHO, it is better that we all say or communicate what we feel can be useful or helpful to our fellow beings and even if it helps a single person, our action would have done its job. We dont have to agree with anything any one has to say and still be friends and be talking and communicating with each other as human beings. I would be looking forward to feedback from everyone on this list and it is likely that all of us can benefit from the feedbacks. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:09:41 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <329462A0.7875@earthlink.net> > >Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use > >happily given > > > >P > > It seems you are claiming copyright in a work which has long been in the > public domain - surely I am wrong in this? Just a general procedure for any of the writings of the Mahatma's posted. Truly the copyright would be K.H.'s. Cheers, P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:48:50 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <32946BC6.2CB2@earthlink.net> > "To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When > we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when > we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; > when action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then > there is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, > then we are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the > one issue which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of > sex there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In > that act there is no self at all." The purpose of sex, according to ALL of the Mahatma's writings is to bring children into the world, and when natural cycles (generally making love around the new moon) are followed the sex impulse is automatically balanced. The ideas in the quoted paragraph above are very much askew from the Mahatma's writings on human psychology and spiritual evolution. The solution, given in esoteric psychology, to any sex problems is to live a fully active and creative outer life of service while following natural cycles. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:46:55 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: In message <199611211209.HAA09263@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >>After all a true Theosophist has as his/her motto "There is No Religion >>Higher than Truth" and all of us who are searching for Truth will have to >>find out for ourself, first hand, IMHO. >> >>MK Ramadoss > >Agreed:)...I employ this same idea for myself, however i do sometimes forget >that this goes for everyone. At times I find myself thinking that, because I >have found my own truths in this way, I can save others time, as well as >trials, by showing them what I have found. Often I come across too forcibly, >and equally as often, I let my emotions get the best of me. Particularly with >regards to Alan and some of his statements. *laugh* Perhaps it is good that >he inspires me so, but I fear that it may be at the expense of his own >emotions. Oh John! You just gave *me* one of the best laughs I have had in ages - truly, I really enjoyed reading the above. :-) My emotions are fully paid up, and no expense is spared ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 18:07:20 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: K. and sex Message-ID: <199611212307.SAA06258@leo.vsla.edu> There is certainly nothing wrong IMO with Krishnamurti having a sex life. OTOH there is something quite wrong with bringing a child up to believe that sex is bad or wrong or "beneath" him, which appears to be what was done to K. quite intensely. Sloss guesses that he was a virgin at 37 when the affair with Rosalind began. It's hard to expect mature behavior from someone whose early life was so bizarre. But there is definitely something wrong with cuckolding someone who is practicing celibacy because he thinks you, as his guru, expect it of him! And this is what Sloss portrays. As well as the betrayal of trust involved in concealing this for so many years. And perhaps worst of all, demanding very coldly that his paramour have a series of abortions-- obviously he was not using the only kind of birth control that was available back then. As for the forwarding of my post about Sloss's book, it was not inappropriate to do so. But the gist of a couple of reactions from K. disciples was "Anyone who likes such a book is spiritually blind" which does not conduce to either truthseeking or siblinghood. I will certainly read the Lutyens book with interest. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:57:49 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Integrity of Krishnamurti Message-ID: <01BBD813.BEC9E020@rvik-ppp-117.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD813.BEDAA900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From Alan on Nov 20. 1996 >Liesel: GOOD GOD, ANOTHER ONE! > >For a spiritual group, methinks we have an inordinate amount of mud = slingers. >How's that for raising people's consciousness? > Alan: > While I sympathise with Liesel's sentiment here, I feel that it is important to raise (again, I know) the question that the value we place upon the work of those who seek or have sought to lead or guide us can sometimes be affected by the extent to which they are seen to practice what they preach. I know nothing of this story, but clearly the implication is that JK may have slipped from his own standards at some point. Einar here: Alan. I think your post here weighted well up to 20 lbs.! - and Lisel, you = have a point too. That JK may have slipped from his own standards I don't know, but I = think the point might be that he may have slipped a little from OUR = standards, and that relay hurts, doesn't it? Having had KM's writings on my night table for about 20 years, and = learnt a lot from it, I don't think KM had any specific standards on sex = at all. I remember that some spiritual seekers (a pair I think) asked = his advice in a problem they had about sexuality vs. spirituality. The = answer was, if I remember rightly: "Have sex, or don't have sex, it does = not matter either way, BUT don't make a problem out of it." So, tell me. = Are WE making a problem out of KM's alleged sex or not sex? Has anyone on this list had an experience with the really beautiful = thing called love-affair? Has it been a problem in itself? I don't think = so. It is one of the most beautiful things I know. The problem is the = attitude of the outsiders, the sociological restrictions, and more = precisely the super egoistic attitude of "owning" people. That seems to = me a perpetual problem in almost all relationships. Then there is the = problem of MY opinions, my standards, my believes. They really hurt, = don't they? Take my advice, drop them, and they won't hurt you anymore, = and more important, they wont hurt others. Alan again: So, no doubt, do we all - I know I have - and clearly due allowance should be made for human frailties and weaknesses. Having said that, if I find that a revered teacher has lied to me (say) then how can I trust other things the teacher has told me? The standard teaching on this is simple: don't do it at all; work to verify what you are taught for yourself, and if you obtain a different result, then say so. Theosophy, for me, is not about following a leader, or adopting a teaching as if it were a creed or a religion - a view shared, I am sure, by HPB - but an attempt to guide us towards a greater understanding or reality on the basis that there is no religion higher than truth. Those who went before us were fallible, as we are fallible. They were not gods any more than we are. Sadly, all too many people in the history of the theosophical movement have treated them as if they were, if not gods, then saints. Because of this, when their shortcomings are brought to light, it can come as something of a shock. When faced from time to time - as has often been the case since I signed up for theos-l - with a most extraordinary kind of "Theosophical Fundamentalism" then the historical facts behind the life and work of those who have gone before us becomes a relevant issue. The important thing, IMO, after having viewed the evidence and the claims and the teachings in their various forms, is the validity or otherwise of the teaching itself. As a brief example, we can consider whether or not an out of the body experience is what it is purported to be by those who claim that such a thing is possible. If we *really* want to *know* then we will need to learn how to have one ourselves. Two or three would be even better. There ain't no short cuts nor any quick fixes in this work. Alan :-) Einar: You hit the point here. Very good! Thanks for the letter, and thank you Lisel too. Love and care. Einar ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD813.BEDAA900 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhQBAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADGy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAHgAAAFJFOiBJbnRlZ3JpdHkgb2YgS3Jpc2hu YW11cnRpAMYKAQWAAwAOAAAAzAcLABYAAAA5ADEABQBjAQEggAMADgAAAMwHCwAWAAAABAAoAAUA JQEBCYABACEAAABDNDVCRkQ0Q0Y3NDNEMDExQTEwRDQ0NDU1MzU0MDAwMADxBgEDkAYATAwAABIA AAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDA5JouENi7AR4AcAABAAAAHgAA AFJFOiBJbnRlZ3JpdHkgb2YgS3Jpc2huYW11cnRpAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbvYEC6aTP1bxUP3 EdChDURFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAABhbm5hc2JAaXNtZW5u dC5pcwAAAAMABhBGr9TrAwAHEDYMAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABGUk9NQUxBTk9OTk9WMjAxOTk2TElF U0VMOkdPT0RHT0QsQU5PVEhFUk9ORUZPUkFTUElSSVRVQUxHUk9VUCxNRVRISU5LU1dFSEFWRUFO SU5PUkRJTkFURUFNT1VOVE9GTVVEAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAzAoAAMgKAAARFAAATFpGdTa29tf/AAoB DwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM7cC5AcTAoM0 EswUyDURBfsTUw/dfQqACM8J2QKACoEDDbELYG5nMTAzOeMK+xViMjQgCoUKiwzQODE0NA3wC1UW 8XMxuDYgRgNhFLAbISACIEMK4RwbTm92IAHQLuAgMTk5NgqPHE8K9PBsaTM2HncUUQvyE1DKbxPQ YwVAPkwIkBGwOxlwIsw6JM8l1COtMThyMALRaS0eQx4sJU1HSE9PRCyRRCwUsE4AT1RIRVIgT048 RSEjrysvJcYh9T5GQQWxYSBzcGkFEHTadQdAIAnACGBwLSAHgBR0aAuAawQgd2UgvRGAdjMwA5EL gAWwZAuAbmET0DFQBGB1AjAgAGZ5MoB1ZDFwLtAbQASQc8IuMKZIb3cnBCAysO00QCACEAXAcgtw AJAbQNAgcGVvC1BlNqEFoEkAgGNpCGBzbgeQc74/MKYh9yLfCsEfwjo53ZsvryIEVzLAOCAgSTFw PwbAIiAysRGwMxAxwGggvyZENqERsAIwB3E0wWgEkPZlLSA+sGYJ4AMgNtMxwO0zwHMh9QdwcBkx AHAFQIx0bzdTMzAoYWcLcWVBQmsz4HcpNsEzMHG/ClATwDjAA6A200USdgdA5wpQMxILUWNlIfUy UEWz2z9hBbBrNOIysG8/UkjgXUBRZUiBBcAzU3MIYGc2aENjOCBhNUAFsWd1/mkNsEewOFEAcCH1 SkAykX0Hc2IzgQ3QJfEJgE0geblFA2V4E9BDVEkwaRFw/0UCTgAKwEohCeFDchNQAND/QJBHN0kw RgROABNQSvARcPshkESFIDPgMrI3wEijBACTMXBDgHJ5LSBidQVA8mNK4XJsTgNCeC7QS/CnRZNT 0TbTSksygGFOAPtJ9C7QcDfgNUADUjNAU9HvNoADoBPAAHBkCxEEIDbx70ySIfVDAAuAdDXmIm8c uP5FNCFJ0UERO+YfwjXmPrD5MrMgeQhhWpETwEDzMxHuaUpxTcEzIGwDIDJQQ3KLAdBK0GI10CEg LTOR/zVAJkAmcS0gX4EzRVqUQ3H2bzXmWwVUVt9X71j7PrD6ZAIgJwVARLJUVF8GRRL9Y8RtYJJN IjbTRSFlzzFgzy7QAkA+gWbTT1UtoFknfy0gYmI20xmQC2Bl4QhwdH9uQWhgB5BogjHAOUZbBUhP M2A3ohGANUBLTTahd+8xsTWBWMEDoG1OAAMASnO/AaBtAjEyBuBUgWGxeVTR/25FVMI0wWyhJdBm xDHAQUL/aGRfJHIQccMAcE4AMYAFkN8GkE8gWRkgERGweFmyB0D+bCGQPrAZkAeABtAEkDbE/0yS MXlJcjWxRAE30AtwXuf5RPBhc3zANUBTwksAcYD/RzAzwWOSA2Bz0R+gT2N4A990Y3nhMeExwE4A djXQMXi/gVEhkGVAM4ID4Hshd34gPy0gBpB6mgUQSnFVADog9iJxYU/SeC0gBbFoZEn0/4WSQiFv 0lLya4ECQHshYIDHRRGDQlRBQlVUaFUAwJ98wH9ZdHI08THALiIGAP5vLSAT0GEhB4BSYQcQMzB8 V0WJgjeiie9yE3pRZf81oDVBefEFsYeCeeFwf1mh/3hQAiAzMEWzU9Eu0F/yeBP3TlE34AiBbn8B P4NFElIRt2EgTgBNMGFUgAaQdUGynzeiS/COcXVxIUBlLU1h/X1RP5CjQiFNMFARf2h/MfsxwCZx ZpZwdvxKQHqBQjL/IAGRQUiya3Ff4pRdaCJEsv+ClJd3NrIzgQJAMcFLkZpl/3RxAJAEgW5BRRJK QDixGSD+Z1YRAyAZkBPABRBQoTiBf25UBGBPwVIBOLAmcU4Ec3syUIgCZ1qwRYF48J3qIn9Y4TWB iyA35IKSNvFJYm3/NrFDkHvBY6EEkDfgMdOXeb8HQJrTelFu86ETMsBwgaE/grFH80/BnXWKBzUA TVn/IAAxkAMAoTNzIW3JcyFNMP0u0GUzcKm0TgCT5W9ib7L3dzRPgJZwVImicyF+xG+x9wNgYWFB AG1uVk+BSFCGI/9vcWMDeEGhwqFpQuefc7Iz/7KVUxE1uTs5MVBEMjvoLp/PJU2LQjPgaFF1Yq8j MxJ/qLJiQFKVPrAzU2JEVLZkf0ahelE2gABwRzepcAhgbP9N0WtyS5E3Im9gA4IDUAtw/mxAkAeR YmIzIImgOQKt8v1xVnMLcG6Ug5JelypQbob/MWAZkDNwGZGLcVIxeyERgNeRwsVSpoMowuB5RPMD oK9I4AfgS/Fe8nI44HRbBf+2A5u2RRLFikOAv3EHgI/N/4KyWSbFdFNDkXVT0lXSXbDvaFW7cUIh eiQ7SERDgFsF/8UhBpCyMTbiswNPwQGQSmP/NyJfgphCblSDsWMSf6ABkP9/MzQQTXEZkAIwWwWg oZTAf7TkWQFl0ZmBy19I8DgAaP9UQTciB4CDkYdkdFQCEL5C/4zESuIEkIWzSwA4AHKSMVD/WwXN B5aiitIzEU/BMWAFAP8J4EsTxOK40KBAIBFiQUZg7wiQB+CpcE+xZEFCNICi4Y9BIVsFTfFbzUhQ Qrkv/yXUYjFUcrdyh+E+8ENjS2f/Q4CDYFmDMhFK8IfyNLCfMrtZMlNDctVHgTRH5WJ+IP9Wlqo3 utHelzLASnB7JEXB/8hQMrDW70j2MyA0wU0wNyHvS6Pdc5YwYSBpc9FuUTMD/0+y70ZSYa4z3XJb BYeCo2B/WZJ4UaHD69PwFFJhBhBk/1UAblFhIWQha4F4UTfkfyL/VTg/MVQSmlZFEdgDoFMEYP8z cEC0M2Kg0OaiseMfoNzk/7IEQRJCdjUA8jbWF1rBwjL+QgWQlHA/UVOFLSBJMKoE/31hvzFvgAWg aoBysk+x4Nb/MjFKdmCShuPH4v9RM4FAQc9MolM2MWFI4GNr7H0+UP9QEZYwRzBmtUCSQ3IFs2JB /+ZAxgI08E6BlvRFEvgwQ+HfN5F/AT6xYJA5AGRHVzcT/fejLbvyP4MxYJrTTmE3YP8z9PcBjLFL EaSB19agUlsFnkbnATSAQHHokXNtiyD/x1NFEva0oFMFAW+QTSEywf+x42yxTYDBVEhk2+ZI5zNT /6NgkTHuWE0wAgLmQm8BrdD/Q0KR8KLwi+DW/0LaUzJBQfxNT25RByFJ0zei32L5pP9OUHGA2sCT ErHFWwVUsOLA/6ZBscXM95ax/oZGcHJwONH/NxKmQNjjRjVLgOiz5/a2A/8/gP2WHIiYFbZu5kIA cMEg/zUATmA0gPWh/jEH4gHigwD/nyL+QohTjyW3cYqF6SPygP55WwWSqVPRUWNCIzfQ0vB/QwLG ZE0xTfNI9huze0V1f08x29chpClxSPCfEPDUSWs1ADMhKpPkKoNRQ1Qq/0SyLvDHUzMhP4BhITkA xmP/WwV1k8eTQ4ETc5Ej0vOt5P9IUEmyP6Dd8UhBv2Wt0QdS/4fiFj/dg+LQaJG60f8DJOD/nvFS 8XQx8tFFUE8gSIB40H54wTH14yiySGG2b7dxOvwtKVsH4rq21lt/XIFdI32FAFljIkIhaehdgnqA Vu+nAOFQo2DygCFkb19QHjN/ERQ1g25XX1RilGQfZSBM/5XRvSTz0jp8XSO4D7kfuiWvSD9JR1xE Sj59PTAATgADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAQAAHMAB55cEI2LsBQAAIMAB55cEI2LsBHgA9AAEAAAAF AAAAUkU6IAAAAAAFvw== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD813.BEDAA900-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:22:44 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Krish and Copulation Message-ID: <01BBD813.C3F656A0@rvik-ppp-117.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD813.C3FF7E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- The Triaist wrote: Often, the pleasure gained in one night can lead to problems which can last for years. Einar here: ...and a lesson that lasts forever - but then, that is very rare, istn't it? Love. Einar. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD813.C3FF7E60 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ih0BAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADGy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAGQAAAFJFOiBLcmlzaCBhbmQgQ29wdWxhdGlv bgCDCAEFgAMADgAAAMwHCwAWAAEAFgAsAAUAPAEBIIADAA4AAADMBwsAFgABABEANgAFAEEBAQmA AQAhAAAAQzg1QkZENENGNzQzRDAxMUExMEQ0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAA9QYBA5AGABwDAAASAAAACwAj AAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkAQP+9qRPYuwEeAHAAAQAAABkAAABSRTog S3Jpc2ggYW5kIENvcHVsYXRpb24AAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbvYE6m9TP1byUP3EdChDURFU1QA AAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAABhbm5hc2JAaXNtZW5udC5pcwAAAAMA BhArsdRaAwAHELIAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAAAtLS0tLS0tLS0tVEhFVFJJQUlTVFdST1RFOjxTTklQ T0ZURU4sVEhFUExFQVNVUkVHQUlORURJTk9ORU5JR0hUQ0FOTEVBRFRPUFJPQkxFTVNXSElDSENB TkxBU1RGT1JZRUFSAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAoAEAAJwBAABNAwAATFpGddxYVjX/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKD AFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM7cC5AcTAoM0EswUyDURBfsT Uw/dfQqACM8J2QKACoEDDbELYG5nMTAzOWMK+xViMjQgCoUKi2wQaTE4MALRaS0xPDQ0DfAM0B7D C1kxNtcKoANgE9BjBUAtIOcKh48LZBRRC/IgZlRoZSNQSwchBAB0G/0gdyByOskKhTxzAwBwPh9/ IITZHV0zNh9nIn1PAYAJ8BgsIHQjcQtQZWFzWwhwI4BnC3EJgCALgCCnAiAjgAMAZ2gFQGMDkfMr ASvQdG8q4ANgAmAT4PEEIHdoaRFwLLQrIAVA2wIQBcB5KxARoC4c7hwbvkULgArBI3AZkCVmLjKR ewBwK9BhLPEEEAIgKqFhzwVALrIEIC8BZXYEkCDQ+CBidQVAKrEqgzPBBACiIDSReSByCsBlKpDJ I+FuJzXBdD8o3ydbczAfHJNMbzSQL50xcy5/N284fx0vKJocdCcuGLEAAUHAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQ AQAAAEAABzBgsJX8Eti7AUAACDBgsJX8Eti7AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAFs4= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBD813.C3FF7E60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:23:38 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <3295009A.6237@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > I must confess to being puzzled by this whole brohaha. Sex is fun. Why > should Krishnamurti or his followers feel a need to justify him enjoying his > life? The problem was not his having sex; it was his having sex with a woman who was married to someone else. In any case, as I stated in my first mention, all it proves is that he was a human being. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:37:50 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Krish and Copulation Message-ID: <961121203750_1883529367@emout03.mail.aol.com> Nothing in life is without risk. And what's a few problems compared to having fun? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:37:59 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <961121203759_1217890839@emout12.mail.aol.com> Doss, Very true. If I had to agree with everything my friends said for them to be my friend I would be a lonely hermit in the wilderness trying out recipes for roast locust (yeech!). Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Nov 21 22:10:11 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Krish and Copulation Message-ID: <199611220310.WAA06248@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >Nothing in life is without risk. And what's a few problems compared to >having fun? > >Chuck the Heretic I suppose it depends on how you look at the situation, i.e. from your point of view or from the POV of the others involved. If you look at it solely from your POV in the sense that you had a good time for a while and everything is swell, then I suppose you could pass off the consequences quite easily. However, if you place yourself in the shoes of the others, i.e. those hurt by the affair (not necessarily meaning "cheating"), and realize the pain that you have caused them because of your (and your partner's) actions, the problems aren't so easily disregarded. If one believes that they must live by the moment and take earthly pleasures where they can get them, your advice is good and dandy. However, if, like myself, you believe that everything you do, (and this includes things that make others happy as well as those that cause pain), will come around to you later in life (or, perhaps, later in lives as some believe), then your advice would only hurt those that wished to take it. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:35:02 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Astrology Message-ID: Dear all, The file AST51.ZIP (506879 bytes)has been added to the web page in the directory ASTROLOGY below the main DIRECTORY. This is a freeware Astrology program with many features, and unzips into Astrolog.exe. It runs under MS Windows, but may also run under DOS - I haven't tried the latter. Enjoy. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Nov 96 07:36:07 EST From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@CompuServe.COM> Subject: The 1900 Letter Inconsistencies Message-ID: <961122123606_72724.413_FHP37-2@CompuServe.COM> A request to Theosophical Historians and other knowledgeable folks: I know there was a discussion of the 1900 letter from K.H. to Annie Besant a while ago on Theos-L but I missed out on it. The letter was recently reposted to Theos-L as follows: THE 1900 LETTER ... 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. ... Beware of an Esoteric Popery. ... ...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. Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use happily given In looking through my references I find the photo facsimile of this letter reproduced in Barborka, The Mahatmas and Their Letters,(TPH, 1973) pp 358-360 plus photo plate. In the photo plate appearing in Barborka's book, several significant sentences have been blocked out, and the explanation for this by Mr. Jinarajadasa is given. Can any of you tell me what is the source for the complete text of the 1900 letter including the blocked out text as put on Theos-L above, and is this generally accepted by Theosophical historians to be correct? The effort to insert the blocked out portions is obviously important. But in looking at the photo plate in the Barborka book, some of the allegedly missing words which are inserted in the above text do not appear to fit quite accurately into the context of the photo plate. For example, in the photo plate, following the words "How few they are who can know anything about us", these words appear , "Are we to be propitiated...." I do not find these words in the above text posted to Theos-L, so it would appear to me that neither the above text, nor what is on the photo plate in the Barborka book are complete. Where is the complete text? And is it authenticated? If this has all been discussed here before, I ask your indulgence and would appreciate the information. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:21:56 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > > > I must confess to being puzzled by this whole brohaha. Sex is fun. Why > > should Krishnamurti or his followers feel a need to justify him enjoying his > > life? > > The problem was not his having sex; it was his having sex with a woman > who was married to someone else. In any case, as I stated in my first > mention, all it proves is that he was a human being. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Bart Lidofsky > Bart: K, I dont think claimed that he is a anything but a human being, just like all of us. It is some of those who have read his works and had attended his lectures who may have made him the super human and may have had difficulty in dealing with the Rosalind affair when it came out in print for the first time when Sloss published her book. Again what went on between him and Rosalind when viewed from the normally accepted norms of the society, may not be acceptable to many. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:11:26 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <961122101125_2048423634@emout05.mail.aol.com> In other words, the Mahatmas were wrong again. Chuck the Heretic "What's the point of evolution without general copulation." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 96 11:56:16 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Total commitment Message-ID: <199611221656.LAA01924@leo.vsla.edu> A recent post on Medit-l has inspired some questions both philosophical and factual that I'd like to pose. It was a very eloquent post but sans permission I won't quote, simply paraphrase. The gist was that you can't serve two Masters, and that any spiritual path requires whole-hearted and total commitment in order to really produce self-transformation. Although we should have respect for other paths, whatever one we have chosen should be trusted enough to suffice for our spiritual needs. That's not said as well as he did, but gives the essence; he said he'd learned this by experience. This produces a divided response in me. My heart says yes, this is indeed true. Having been at various times a Caycean/ Theosophist/Gurdjieffian/Satchidanandist/Shabd Yogi (with various levels of commitment) my spiritual life has been rather like Windows running several programs at once. Lately I have returned to reexamine my first focus on Cayce, which has unexpectedly become a whole-hearted and total commitment-- more so than Theosophy or any other has ever been. And that does feel more right than being scattered all over the place, ambivalent about several different paths. On the other hand, my head says no, you maximize your learning potential by immersion in many different traditions, it's better to be with your ambivalence than to flee from it, and diversity rather than one-pointedness seems to characterize the people who have struck me as being spiritually awakened. This either/or, unlike monogamy vs. polygamy, is probably really a both/and. At times our evolution requires studying several spiritualities at once (as in undergraduate school) but at other times whole-hearted devotion to a single path is called for (as in graduate school). Theosophists seem to definitely be spiritual polygamists by and large. Most I've met have been, anyway. But at the tops of all the organization are monogamous Theosophists who see Theosophy as their single whole-hearted commitment. Maybe in light of the teaching about serving more than one Master, they really have it right and the ES is not such a bad idea (apart from its political machinations). On the other hand, they are somewhat hypocritical in welcoming polygamous people into the organization, but then subtly putting them down and saying "Only we hundred-percenters really count." I would welcome anyone's philosophical reflections on this issue, or personal comments, or description of how you perceive Theosophists generally in this regard and how it affects the movement. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:13:11 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <3295DF24.58B9@earthlink.net> > In other words, the Mahatmas were wrong again. > Chuck the Heretic In true words, the Mahatmas are right as always. Pat the Texan -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:04:21 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: The 1900 Letter Inconsistencies Message-ID: <3295EB16.19A9@earthlink.net> Here is the complete letter as found in the poblic new age forum on Compuserve. (The one posted previously was a series of selected quotes from the letter.) 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. Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use happily given -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:10:56 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The 1900 Letter Inconsistencies Message-ID: Hi The first time I saw the letter, it was published in September/October 1987 issue of The Eclectic Theosophist, a bi-monthly publication by Point Loma Publications. As far as I know, no one has disputed the deleted portions as published. May be some one else can throw more light on the redacted text etc. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Sy Ginsburg wrote: > A request to Theosophical Historians and other knowledgeable folks: > > I know there was a discussion of the 1900 letter from K.H. to Annie Besant a > while ago on Theos-L but I missed out on it. The letter was recently reposted > to Theos-L as follows: > > THE 1900 LETTER > > ... 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. ... > Beware of an Esoteric Popery. ... > ...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. > > Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use > happily given > > In looking through my references I find the photo facsimile of this letter > reproduced in Barborka, The Mahatmas and Their Letters,(TPH, 1973) pp 358-360 > plus photo plate. In the photo plate appearing in Barborka's book, several > significant sentences have been blocked out, and the explanation for this by Mr. > Jinarajadasa is given. > > Can any of you tell me what is the source for the complete text of the 1900 > letter including the blocked out text as put on Theos-L above, and is this > generally accepted by Theosophical historians to be correct? The effort to > insert the blocked out portions is obviously important. But in looking at the > photo plate in the Barborka book, some of the allegedly missing words which are > inserted in the above text do not appear to fit quite accurately into the > context of the photo plate. > > For example, in the photo plate, following the words "How few they are who can > know anything about us", these words appear , "Are we to be propitiated...." > I do not find these words in the above text posted to Theos-L, so it would > appear to me that neither the above text, nor what is on the photo plate in the > Barborka book are complete. > > Where is the complete text? And is it authenticated? > > If this has all been discussed here before, I ask your indulgence and would > appreciate the information. > > Sy Ginsburg > > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:46:27 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Celibacy Message-ID: In message <01BBD813.BEC9E020@rvik-ppp-117.ismennt.is>, Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB writes >Having had KM's writings on my night table for about 20 years, and = >learnt a lot from it, I don't think KM had any specific standards on sex = >at all. I remember that some spiritual seekers (a pair I think) asked = >his advice in a problem they had about sexuality vs. spirituality. The = >answer was, if I remember rightly: "Have sex, or don't have sex, it does = >not matter either way, BUT don't make a problem out of it." A bit simplistic, perhaps, as it is not only the act, but the context in which it takes place which can be important, but in general terms, I think K is right on the mark with this reply. It is certainly the answer I have given to those who have sought my advice re celibacy over the years. In general, and for most people, it seems probable that celibacy is unhealthy. If there's a problem, then often D.I.Y. is the short term solution ..... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:13:18 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Sex and other stuff Message-ID: <199611230213.TAA08977@snowden.micron.net> K. said: >"To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When >we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when >we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; Since what K. wrote is essentially true, why then did he find it necessary to "deny" his responsibility in his relationship with Rosalind? Blaming it on her husband, or on the woman herself - that is definitely a form of "following, obeying, imitating," - geez, how many times have we heard that? Admitting responsiblity, then sensibly dealing with it, is far more courageous than the route K. seems to have chosen here when asked about this issue. 'Course, he seems to always get a bit perturbed when asked any kind of questions. Anyway, his excuse/explanation of his sleeping with a married woman doesn't pass the smell test. . . Paul wrote: > And perhaps worst of all, demanding very coldly that >his paramour have a series of abortions-- obviously he was >not using the only kind of birth control that was available >back then. K.'s insistence on repeated abortions tells me that he may have looked upon some individuals as nothing but "playgrounds." Did he really have no thought about what this may be doing to the woman, or women - what this may be doing to both her physical and mental state? How can one offer advice to humanity when they cannot grasp the fundamental concept of respect and concern for other beings? I hate to sound like a "Susie-one-note" but, the more one knows, the more responsiblity one has. People are far too accepting of people who claim to be "wiser" than others and they too often look the other way when these same individuals commit acts they would not tolerate in their next door neighbor. The manifestation of the "higher ideals" will not come into being until people believe that it is possible. . .and that they are worthy of it. Patrick wrote: > > The purpose of sex, according to ALL of the Mahatma's writings is >to bring children into the world, and when natural cycles (generally >making love around the new moon) are followed the sex impulse is >automatically balanced. When I read the above, I jumped up with such a force that my Hostess snack cake flew out of my hand and made a horrifying sound as it hit the back wall. I boldly declare that the Mahatmas, if the above assessment is true, are in serious error here. The above is not consistent with human psychology or human physiology. It is these kinds of ideas, put forward by those who claim, or are claimed, to be "special" in their knowledge, that can cause so much chaos, disharmony, guilt, and unwanted children. People want to express their love to each other, in the physical, more often than "around the new moon." Not every woman who engages in intercourse wants the consequence to be pregnancy. And on and on and on. . . I am surprised that those who recognize the complexity of life would turn around and make such a simplistic statement about sex. I think the clothes have yet to find their emperor. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:19:27 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <961122191927_230153188@emout15.mail.aol.com> Marriage does complicate matters, which is why I have always felt it should be abolished. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:20:28 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: K. and sex Message-ID: <961122192026_230153658@emout01.mail.aol.com> The problem is therefore with the teaching and the failure of that teaching to recognize the basic element of humanity in all human interaction. It inevitably leads to disaster, witness the Catholic Church becoming a child molesters club house. I'm looking forward to the Lutyens book too. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:20:46 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Krish and Copulation Message-ID: <961122192045_230153809@emout15.mail.aol.com> If things work out badly, well, that happens in life. Nothing is guaranteed and we can never know going into a situation exactly how it will come out. But If both parties go through the affair happy and satisfied there is no reason to get bother by it. In any event, it was their business and no one elses, with the exception of poor Rajapol who got cuckolded and thus would have had reason to be upset. But then, if he hadn't found out... Chuck the Heretic "Sex is not the answer, sex is the question. Yes is the answer" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:05:08 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Sex and other stuff Message-ID: <32968604.3092@eden.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > K. said: > > >"To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When > >we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when > >we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; > > Since what K. wrote is essentially true, why then did he find it necessary > to "deny" his responsibility in his relationship with Rosalind? Blaming it > on her husband, or on the woman herself - that is definitely a form of > "following, obeying, imitating," - geez, how many times have we heard that? > Admitting responsiblity, then sensibly dealing with it, is far more > courageous than the route K. seems to have chosen here when asked about this > issue. 'Course, he seems to always get a bit perturbed when asked any kind > of questions. Anyway, his excuse/explanation of his sleeping with a married > woman doesn't pass the smell test. . . > The whole issue of K's relationship with Rosalind came in print only when Sloss (Rosalind's daughter) wrote the book. There was protracted litigation between Krishnamurti's New Foundation /Trustees /California Atty General vs Rajagopal and the trustees of the old Krishnamurti Trusts which arose when Rajagopal who controlled the old trusts refused to account for the money donated for K's work. During the course of litigation, Rosalind and Rajagopal tried to blackmail K saying that they are going to bring this issue into the case. Some of K's statements came about on this issue when the litigation went on. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:45:18 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Lutyens, Algeo, etc. Message-ID: <961123004518_571475682@emout05.mail.aol.com> Doss, What went on between Krishnamurti and Rosalind was certainly acceptable to me. In fact among my friends such behavior is normative. I can never keep track of who is bedding whom. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:46:19 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <961123004618_1184559717@emout20.mail.aol.com> The Masters haven't been right about anything since Morya wrote the Kama Sutra. I know because I dated his girlfriend three incarnations later and my back still hurts when I move wrong. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 05:55:13 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: K. and sex Message-ID: <3296E621.48E1@eden.com> K did address the issues head-on in his talks more than once. The issue became prominent when Sloss wrote the book and brought in public view K's relationship with her mother Rosalind. The latter(relationship) was discussed between K and the Trustees of KFA during the litigation when Rajagopal repeatedly tried to use it to end the law suit in progress. During litigation, Rosalind wrote a letter to K to be read by him alone and to be destroyed after reading. In that letter she did tell him that the issue will be brought up in the litigation. There is also a letter dictated by K but was not sent to Rajagopal during the litigation. In that he specifically refers to a settlement document that Rajagopal sent to K (which was hand carried from Rajagopal to K by Mr. Bee, one of the trustees) in which K specifically refers to the blackmail attempt to use this is issue. The issues under litigation were self-dealing by trustees, dissipation of trust assets, failure of defendants to carry out the charitable purposes of trust. The trustees of the new KFA and Attorney General of California sued the old Trusts and the Trustees. Thanks to Sloss' book. Many more details of both the litigation as well as many things that took place in K's life have coming out. Lutyens book brings out a lot of details for the first time. BTW, Mr. Bee mentioned above is currently on Boards of TSA and Theosophical Investment Trust, I accidentally discovered this, some time ago. MK Ramadoss PS: As Lutyens points out, is it reasonable for any one expect to K to have gone out and brag about Rosalind being his mistress. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 06:25:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Sex and other stuff Message-ID: <3296ED21.5E65@eden.com> When TS was started and HPB and HSO were "selected", you will see that they were not the "ideal" models acceptable to the standards of the day. Even HSO admitted that he "was" a man of the world interested in bars and women when he got interested in Theosophy. No one made much fuss about his background at that time. Both Sinnett and Hume with whom the correspondence took place were meat eaters and probably drank liquor too. When Sinnett asked about conversing with his correspondent through astral light, the response was: "were he (Hume) even to give up feeding on animals would still feel a craving for such a food, a craving over which he would have no control and, -- the impediment would be the same in that case." There is a parallel to what K stated when he discussed about the celibacy of the religious monks and the craving inside. My 2 cents worth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:11:15 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Sex and other stuff Message-ID: <961123101115_1117478124@emout13.mail.aol.com> Perhaps someone who is not a victorian may someday contact the Mahatmas, wherever they are hiding these days, and explain the facts of life to them. Sex has lots of purposes, the very least of which is procreation, which is to be avoided at all costs. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Nov 96 11:38:20 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 733 Message-ID: <961123163819_74024.3352_BHT108-5@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net >e this request with tears, and he answered: "Enough, lady. Do not make this request." So wandering and teaching he came to Vaishali, and Prajapati with shorn hair and yellow robes, followed by many of the Shakya ladies, journeyed there on foot and waited in the porch of the Pagoda Hall, very sorrowful. There the beloved disciple Ananda, cousin of the Buddha, met them and seeing their feet cut and bleeding from travel, and their faces covered with dust and tears, asked the reason. Having heard all he went to the Buddha and besought for these women and was refused. Again and yet again he besought--in vain. But pity urged Ananda to perserverance, and he said: "Lord, if women retire to the homeless life, is it possible for them to attain Arahatship [the higher consciousness]? Escaping from sorrow can they reach this?" And he in who is all truth answered: "They can attain." Then Ananda gladdened (his name means Joy), and he said: "Then let the Blessed One think of the Lady Prajapati! She is sister to the mother of the Blessed One, and at her breast he was nourished. Let them be admitted. If they can thus end sorrow, should it not be permitted?" And the Buddha answered: "I cannot refuse. If they will accept eight weighty rules in addition to those accepted by the Order and will be subject to the Order it shall be reckoned to them for ordination." Keith: Dear Kym: I am confused by this post and you are probably by most of mine. Why did the women affect Buddha's religion enduring? I assume you are of the female persuasion as I am, but you probably have female genitalia which I don't. But what differences does that make. Spirituality doen't need genetalia to endure or even be COOL! a realy COOL nasaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Nov 96 11:46:25 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 733 Message-ID: <961123164624_74024.3352_BHT108-6@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net >en-handed with me, a member?" There wasn't anything subtle about the scathing nature of his TMR reviews. As to whether or not it is appropriate for a section president to attack people's books, who knows? I felt it was inappropriate for someone who had been involved in TPH's decision not to publish mine (as Algeo was) to then review it scathingly when someone else published it. But there are no rule books about these things. If there were, and I could contribute to it, I'd suggest this: neither the section head nor the international president are needed or wanted as ideological spokesman/woman for the TS, and yet they both seem to have definite ideologies, not shared with most members, that they are subtly and not-so-subtly striving to promote. If they choose to review relevant books, no problem. But when they use their authority and status as role models in order to promote contempt and hostility toward authors (as in my case) or to encourage members to completely ignore books (as in Tillett's) then something is seriously wrong. Ideological correctness trumps any even-handed consideration of alternative views. "No religion higher than truth" has lost most or not all meaning in the Theosophical world, and the Krishamurti-ites don't seem to be any more successful at exemplifying it. Keith: \ Dear KPAUL: I don't know if this is appropriate or helps much. In fact it if pretty cold comfort, but appropos of not being pblished, allowed to go to Krotona, and a multtude of sins I would suggest these balms: 1. Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules 2. Key to Theosophy/Krotona - he who has the key can lock the door 3. Quest for publication - he who controls the press, or media control ideologies that are shared, BUT we still have the internet for a little precious while before they sew that up too the little devils and God know they are working to control, commercialize it, sanitize, censor it, purify it, but it is Aquarian and will rebel, electrify and enlighten with wave of ENERGy Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:00:42 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Truth is a Pathless Land Message-ID: <3293A9BA.121B@worldnet.att.net> Chuck, as you well know, as soon as Truth is put into words, it becomes a lie. So, yes, you are qualified to run for the board. I'll even vote for you. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:19:50 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re: to Keith Message-ID: <3293BC46.93B@worldnet.att.net> >Jesus wasn't psychic so much as realistic in thinking that they would >hunt him down and kill him if he claimed to be homo superior, more >evolved, above the law etc. Excuse me Keith, but I don't recall Jesus ever saying such a thing. Where did you get this idea? >Which brings up the question, if you really were enlightened, wouldn't >you just chop wood, carry water, gaze at the tree in the garden, walk >on and keep your mouth shut! I guess that is the difference between >being enlightened and being filled with Necessity to feel and create >art, even if it is bad art. I suspect that even enlightened folks feel the need to create. Creativity is inherent in divinity, and thus is expressed on all planes and subplanes. Since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I don't believe in "bad art" per se. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:30:23 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Magic? Message-ID: <32976CEF.5F76@worldnet.att.net> >The important thing, IMO, after having viewed the evidence and the >claims and the teachings in their various forms, is the validity or >otherwise of the teaching itself. Amen. >As a brief example, we can consider whether or not an out of the body >experience is what it is purported to be by those who claim that such a >thing is possible. If we *really* want to *know* then we will need to >learn how to have one ourselves. Two or three would be even better. This is praticing magic -- not authorized! However, I tend to do it myself sometimes. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:36:17 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Heretic??? Message-ID: <32976E51.3983@worldnet.att.net> > I am not going to waste my time worrying about the morals of others. >If Krishnamurti's ideas are of value, it is utterly irrelevant who he >slept with. Chuck, I am in complete agreement. Does this make me a heretic too? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:48:50 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Sex vs Karma Message-ID: <32977142.405B@worldnet.att.net> >If you read "The Secret Doctrine" you will find that it was just >such fun which brought an end to Lemuria (read Sodom & Gomorha). Sex >is a difficult issue but one which is resolvable as the New Era dawns. I have read the SD several times, and have found no such a thing. Lemuria sank because its time was up--everything is born, lives for a time, and dies. As for Sodom & Gomoraha, we have to remember who wrote the story. Good and evil are relative, and there is no such thing as immorality that causes lands to sink (or do you believe in an anthropomorphic god wearing a white robe, etc?). However, there IS karma, but this has nothing to do with morality per se except as we make it. Sex may be difficult for you, but I don't find it so. Its biological like eating, but also psychological like love. Like everything else, it can generate karma, depending on how it is viewed by the user at the time. If you believe that having sex can make a continent sink, then I have a bridge for sale... Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:38:49 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Is Life for Fun? Message-ID: <32976EE9.394A@worldnet.att.net> >I must confess to being puzzled by this whole brohaha. Sex is fun. >Why should Krishnamurti or his followers feel a need to justify him >enjoying his life? Chuck, perhaps because theosophists, like Christians, take life far too seriously? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:54:22 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <3297728E.4769@worldnet.att.net> Doss, thanks for the quotes from K. I agree with him completely. BTW, there was a famous saint by the name of Ramakrishna who married to show that sex and the Path were not incompatable, and to demonstrate that you can be married and still be spiritual. Theosophy, IMHO, is wrong on this one. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:06:39 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <3297756F.F2D@worldnet.att.net> >The purpose of sex, according to ALL of the Mahatma's writings is >to bring children into the world,... This is the most outrageous and silly thing that I have ever heard. It is pure disinformation. There is almost no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on any subject. In any case, modern psychology has clearly demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy, and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche. So, if your statement is true, then the Mahatma's are plain wrong. I agree that some Mahatmas make this claim, but hardly all, and those who do obviously know nothing of the human need for intimacy--a crucial developmental task for all normal human beings. Intimacy, according to all modern psychological research, is more important to psychological development than having children, which is also important, but not critical. The idea of sex for children is pure Christian Catholicism, not theosophy. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:33:08 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: 1900 letter; K's sex life Message-ID: <9611240033.AA12917@toto.csustan.edu> Regarding the 1900 letter: Sy Ginsberg writes: >Can any of you tell me what is the source for the complete text >of the 1900 letter including the blocked out text as put on >Theos-L above, and is this generally accepted by Theosophical >historians to be correct? The effort to insert the blocked out >portions is obviously important. But in looking at the photo >plate in the Barborka book, some of the allegedly missing words >which are inserted in the above text do not appear to fit quite >accurately into the context of the photo plate. JHE The source of the complete text is the original text in the archives of the Theosophical Society in Adyar. The blocked out text was originally published in THE THEOSOPHIST by Jinarajadasa. This was done during the time of the Hare Brother's accusations that the Mahatma letters were fraudulent. Jinarajadasa published a photographic copy of the letter in its blocked out form, in order to counter the Hare criticisms. The complete text was first published in the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST in 1987 and it is indeed an authentic transcription of the original. I am not aware of any historians who question the authenticity of the transcription. SG >For example, in the photo plate, following the words "How few >they are who can know anything about us", these words appear , >"Are we to be propitiated...." I do not find these words in the >above text posted to Theos-L, so it would appear to me that >neither the above text, nor what is on the photo plate in the >Barborka book are complete. JHE Try going back to the photo copy in THE THEOSOPHIST, and compare it with the transcription in the ECLECTIC. It works. SG >Where is the complete text? JHE The original? It is still in Adyar. The transcription? It was published in the Sept-Oct 1987 issue of the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST. SG And is it authenticated? JHE The transcription? By whom? How? If you are asking whether Adyar has acknowledged the authenticity of a letter they did not want the membership to see in the first place: no, they have not. The Original? Jinarajadasa evidently thought it to be authentic. But the authenticity of all of the Mahatma Letters is a disputed issue. By the way, who was so crass as to register a copyright on this letter? Regarding Krishnamurti: Einar wrote: >That JK may have slipped from his own standards I don't know, >but I think the point might be that he may have slipped a little >from OUR standards, and that relay hurts, doesn't it? JHE Personally, I don't have a "standard" for a spiritual leader's sex life--not even the "world teacher's." Rather, I'm happy for him that he had the affair. It gave him a common ground of experience with the rest of humanity--an important thing for a spiritual teacher. OTOH I would think it more prudent to have such experiences with someone who is not married, and I personally feel that abortions are too high of a cost for this kind of behavior. But these are my values, not his. From another perspective, I remember hearing Krishnamurti in Krotona lecturing to the unmarried younger people in the crowd not to get sexually involved. From one point of view, K was speaking from the wisdom of experience, but his audience didn't know that. If he had shared with the audience that he was not celibate, his message would not have had such a hollow ring to me. I would guess that most of his audience thought of him as someone who was above all of this, and he said nothing to dispel this belief. To me, K's affair is not problematical because it might have violated my standards of sexual behavior, but because it violated the standards I heard him preach to others. I call this hypocrisy. For whatever it is worth, my own conclusions are that K. was an ordinary man who was believed by many to be a world teacher. Therefore he was forced to lead a duplicitous life in order to avoid creating undesirable publicity for KFA. Ramadoss Wrote: >PS: As Lutyens points out, is it reasonable for any one expect >to K to have gone out and brag about Rosalind being his >mistress. JHE Of course not. It is reasonable for a human being *not* to discuss their actions that would bring embarrassment to themselves and others involved. OTOH, it is also reasonable for public figures to try to avoid situations that have the potential of bringing embarrassment upon themselves and others. But public figures don't always do reasonable things: do they? Ramadoss >When TS was started and HPB and HSO were "selected", you will >see that they were not the "ideal" models acceptable to the >standards of the day. Even HSO admitted that he "was" a man of >the world interested in bars and women when he got interested in >Theosophy. No one made much fuss about his background at that >time. JHE Are you suggesting that because Blavatsky and Olcott might not have been "`ideal' models" justifies Krishnamurti's actions? Or, are you suggesting that because no one "made a fuss" about Olcott's background, we therefore should not make a fuss about Krishnamurti? Alan Bain wrote: >The important thing, IMO, after having viewed the evidence and >the claims and the teachings in their various forms, is the >validity or otherwise of the teaching itself. JHE Agreed. By the way, for those interested in a copy of this book, I have a few copies of the original Bloomsbury edition of this book on hand. $25.00 each. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 19:38:36 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Total commitment Message-ID: <961123193835_141354097@emout19.mail.aol.com> Paul, An interesting problem. As a Chaos Magician, my tendency is to towards the eclectic. As a Theosophist (albeit a very bad one) this reinforced. After all, we are encouraged in to study as many different paths as possible and (are some folks gonna change color over this) Theosophy itself is a mishmash of different spiritual paths all blended together. So a total commitment to one way of doing things is anathema to my nature. On the other hand, there is something to be said for finding a single path and sticking with it through fire and flood. The problem with that is that produces people of singular intolerance and fanaticism, leaving me to often feel that those who are commited probably should be. That was probably what John Algeo had in mind when he started his Olcott Institute, the commited Theosophists could be institutionalized and certified. :-) Personally I find 100 per centers generally boring after a while and their only redeeming virtue is that they sputter nicely when someone not only disagrees with them but doesn't care what their guru thinks about anything. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 19:39:36 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: K. and sex Message-ID: <961123193934_141354332@emout04.mail.aol.com> Doss, It would depend on the circumstances, but to brag about his relationship with Rosalind was probably impolite at best and certainly did not help the feelings of poor Rajagopal (sorry I misspelled his name before). I find it impossible to object ot Krishnamurti taking such pleasures as the gods provided, but he certainly should have remembered his manners. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:25:30 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Total commitment Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961125033746.1ccfebac@iprolink.co.nz> >A recent post on Medit-l .... gist was that you can't serve two Masters, >and that any spiritual path requires whole-hearted and total >commitment in order to really produce self-transformation. > [snip] >I would welcome anyone's philosophical reflections on this >issue, or personal comments, or description of how you perceive >Theosophists generally in this regard and how it affects the >movement. I would agree that whole-hearted and total commitment are required, though they don't necessarily come all at once; I think you work up to them. Perhaps the trick is in realizing that there ultimately is only one Master - the inner teacher-essence - beyond individual names. Then you find it coming out at you from virtually every pore of reality. Or from within - the distinction blurs. So have we transformed "Unity in Diversity" into "Monogamy in Polygamy"? Better be careful! As always. :-) Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:19:08 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Welcome! Message-ID: Theosophy International welcomes it's 50th member, Ilona from Lithuania! Ilona has no local theosophical contact, and would welcome hearing from you. E-mail to hoplt@inbox.tdd.lt We now have members in eleven countries ... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:44:22 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: A World Wide Web copy of K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. Message-ID: <199611250244.TAA12748@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my paper titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. I will be answering individually in the near future all e-mail concerning this paper. In the meantime I want to announce that the paper has now been published on the World Wide Web. The URL address is as follows: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm This WWW version is still considered a draft copy although the complete text of the paper will be found at this WWW site. But italics need to be added to the whole text. This will be done in the next few days. Also the appendix written by David Reigle is slow downloading. This will also be corrected in the near future. If K. Paul Johnson decides to write a reply to my paper, I will be most happy to also publish his reply at the same WWW site. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:38:55 UTC From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Full Moon in Sagittarius Message-ID: <199611241438.2977700@microfone.net> Sagittarius is the ninth sign, and the ninth labor of Hercules was to kill the Stymphalian birds. Stymphalus was a fetid marsh, inhabited by ferocious man-killing birds. Hercules tried many ways to kill the birds, but there were simply too many and they rose up "in clouds that hid the sun." Three main birds were there, but countless others also lived in the swamp. After much reflection, Hercules remembered his gift from Athena -- two cymbals that gave off an unearthly screeching sound, a sound such that nothing could withstand it. Hercules covered his ears and struck the cymbals again and again. The Stymphalian birds were confused, then frightened and they rose up and fled the swamp, never to return. **** The symbol for Sagittarius is the archer. Actually, there are three symbols: first is the centaur, half-man and half-horse. This is the symbol most familiar for this sign. Sagittarius is also the archer, the man astride the white horse; this shows the non-attachment after the archer has dissociated himself from the animal nature (in Scorpio) and uses it, instead, as a means. Finally we have the symbol of the arrow itself, and in these three we have the pattern of the evolving energy of Sagittarius: first the attached duality, then the non-attachment of the recognized duality, and finally only the intuitive shaft remains, speeding toward the goal. The keys to the work in Sagittarius are direction and sound, and the proper use of each in attaining the goal. The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of Scorpio, and from the vision that always follows testing. With this expanded vision, the archer can see "the immediate goal ahead" and follow the arrow one-pointedly to that goal. After retrieving that arrow, another goal then becomes visible. All of us can relate to the Sagittarius experience whether we are presently in that sign or not. We can recognize that the particular trials and apparent limitations that we face give us the ability to take "the next step ahead," whatever that might be. The archer sets his sights on the immediate goal ahead -- not himself -- and in successively reaching the "little goals" finds liberation through service. We know from the Ancient Wisdom that evolution continues through infinity, and there is really no end to the journey. There are milestones on the path where the consciousness achieves relative expansions, but these "highpoints" serve to give a broader vision, and mark the beginning of new journeys with greater responsibilities. _________________ The full moon in Sagittarius occurs today at 11:11pm, EST (4:11am GMT, Nov 25) A group meditation will be held on the subject of Letting in the Light at 3:00pm Sunday (EST) and also at the time of the full moon. At the time of each full moon Festival, energy qualified by the constellation influencing that period flows into the range of human awareness, thereby establishing the divine attributes in the consciousness of humanity. This spiritual inflow can be channeled in meditation into the minds and hearts of all people, and everyone is invited to participate in the group effort. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:11:38 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Heretic??? Message-ID: <961124101137_1151133584@emout17.mail.aol.com> Jerry, You were a heretic years ago. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 00:30:18 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sex and other stuff Message-ID: In message <199611230213.TAA08977@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >I am surprised that >those who recognize the complexity of life would turn around and make such a >simplistic statement about sex. > > >I think the clothes have yet to find their emperor. Yep. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 00:23:21 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Total commitment Message-ID: In message <199611221656.LAA01924@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >And that does feel more right than being scattered >all over the place, ambivalent about several different paths. > >On the other hand, my head says no, you maximize your learning >potential by immersion in many different traditions, it's >better to be with your ambivalence than to flee from it, and >diversity rather than one-pointedness seems to characterize the >people who have struck me as being spiritually awakened. Comment as requested: Follow one path until a good enough understanding of it has been reached to be able to make informed and intelligent comparisons (a la TS 2nd object). *Then* maximise learning potential. 2 cents' worth. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:37:07 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The 1900 Letter Inconsistencies Message-ID: In message <3295EB16.19A9@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes >Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use >happily given Your claim to copyright in this work is illegal. Subscribers please note that no permission from anyone is required to republish this letter. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 96 10:42:52 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Total commitment Message-ID: <199611241843.KAA10036@scv3.apple.com> >A recent post on Medit-l .... gist was that you can't serve two Masters, >and that any spiritual path requires whole-hearted and total >commitment in order to really produce self-transformation. > >I would welcome anyone's philosophical reflections on this >issue, or personal comments, or description of how you perceive >Theosophists generally in this regard and how it affects the >movement. All three of the main modern occult traditions (Theosophy, with its grandchild the New Age movement; the Golden Dawn, with its splinters such as BOTA and Thelema; and witchcraft/nmeo-paganism, which derived from both streams) were created by people who had studied far and wide, drawing together numerous threads from the tapestry of diverse traditions and weaving them into a new fabric. It would seem strange to me to think that this activity was appropriate for the founders but not for the inheritors of these traditions. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 96 10:42:54 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: why not meet the masters? Message-ID: <199611241843.KAA79160@scv3.apple.com> >When Sinnett asked about >conversing with his correspondent through astral light, the response >was: > >"were he (Hume) even to give up feeding on animals would still feel a >craving for such a food, a craving over which he would have no control >and, -- the impediment would be the same in that case." Of course, the cynical interpretation would point out that this was one of a long list of excuses why direct evidence of the existence of the masters could not be provided. This excuse has the advantages that it blames the aspirant and the supposed problem could never be shown to have been solved. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:50:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Copyright. Message-ID: In message <329462A0.7875@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes >> >Copyright (c) 1900-1995 --- permission for goodwill non-profit use >> >happily given >> > >> >P >> >> It seems you are claiming copyright in a work which has long been in the >> public domain - surely I am wrong in this? > > Just a general procedure for any of the writings of the Mahatma's >posted. Truly the copyright would be K.H.'s. *Invalid* procedure in law if the original author has been dead for 50 years or more (USA) or 70 years or more (Europe). When did KH die? (if indeed he is the author of the 1900 letter). It seems to me that your "permission" is a little presumptuous. > >Cheers, > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:41:20 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: In message <961123004618_1184559717@emout20.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >The Masters haven't been right about anything since Morya wrote the Kama >Sutra. I know because I dated his girlfriend three incarnations later and my >back still hurts when I move wrong. Your bad karma has obviously caught up with you. > Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:54:14 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 736 Message-ID: <199611242054.NAA11169@snowden.micron.net> Keith wrote: >Keith: Dear Kym: I am confused by this post and you are probably by most of >mine. Why did the women affect Buddha's religion enduring? I assume you are of >the female persuasion as I am, but you probably have female genitalia which I >don't. But what differences does that make. Spirituality doen't need genetalia >to endure or even be COOL! Dear Keith, Actually, the reason I posted the "post" was not about women at all - it was more about how people can say "dumb things" - ex: Buddhism will perish since women stuck their nose in it (which it didn't); people can say things that hurt people's feelings, ex: Buddha hurting women's feelings by refusing to speak to or listen to them; and on and on - and still not be a "mud-slinger." I took Liesel to be saying the theos-l was becoming un-"spiritual" because of some sniping, sarcasm, and loud and bold skepticism (again, my personal interpretation of her post) - so I put a story up about Buddha - a very spiritual human being - caught in the act of. . .well. . .acting like one of us. I definitely understand why Liesel might feel that theos-l periodically, or more than periodically, "lowers" itself - it's just that I think that's almost a necessary part of any kind of valid discussion. . .and well, heckaroni!, sometimes it's just plain fun. . . By the way, regarding your posts - confused? Occasionally, yes, but being confused is fun too. Art House managed to express my feelings toward your posts quite well :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:19:46 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: why not meet the masters? try it and see! Message-ID: In message <199611241843.KAA79160@scv3.apple.com>, Tim Maroney quotes and writes >>"were he (Hume) even to give up feeding on animals would still feel a >>craving for such a food, a craving over which he would have no control >>and, -- the impediment would be the same in that case." > >Of course, the cynical interpretation would point out that this was one >of a long list of excuses why direct evidence of the existence of the >masters could not be provided. This excuse has the advantages that it >blames the aspirant and the supposed problem could never be shown to have >been solved. Although now a vegetarian, I made my own contacts with "higher intelligences" such as might be thought of by some as "Masters" when still carnivorous. So, the quote, IMO, is evidence of some kind of excuse or duplicity - maybe to put Sinnet off? "Direct evidence" of such intelligences is of course impossible to provide if the contact is supposed to be "astral" (which heaven forbid) as any such contact would be almost by definition subjective. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Nov 96 17:35:13 EST From: joseph k price <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Memes and molecular machines Message-ID: <961124223512_74024.3352_BHT89-3@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by BC Crandall > My point -- that is to say the meme that has established itself "with the fiery claws of heaven's own dragon" in the brain meat of *this* domesticated primate -- is this: The memes of technoscience are making it possible for our semi-conscious species to organize matter with the precision of DNA. As near as we can tell, all life is dependent up the smooth functioning of the DNA-RNA-protein system. Humans, like all creatures, make mistakes. Those of us who would like to bequeath future generations the opportunity we often take for granted, that of sharing memes with a community of others (by virtue of the fact that we are, at this time, alive), must organize themselves in such a way that they will be able to survive the material phase-space transition that will occur when self-directed, and evolving machinic systems interact with the matter of our bodies and the matter of the world with molecular precision. Elizabeth suggested that my "premise is that if the human race does not survive, it will be a catastrophe." And goes on to suggest that I am fear mongering, and therefore being part of the problem and not the solution. Fear, is like pain. It should draw our attention to something (physically) out of order. Once attention has been drawn, and appropriate action has begun, analgesics and comfort are utterly in order. However, when I come across a group of intelligent, articulate, caring, and in some fashion visionary individuals spending their time and energy in (yes) inconsequential memetic jousting, I feel the species is being deprived of valuable resources that might increase the potential for continuing this marvelous human dance. I would not be spending my time and energy generating these memes for your consumption if I felt you were here (on this mailing list) simply for entertainment (which is in many ways a fine activity, but not our only one). Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many of you deeply care, about the well being of each other, the species, and the planet. I repeat my suggestion that "we" agree to disagree as to the "definitions" of "G*D," etc., support an intermediate fiction -- "Agnostic Adequism," which holds that while we cannot know, for so many reasons, the molecular integrity of our material environment must be able to support our physical forms if our conversations are to continue -- and address the admittedly difficult question of determining how we want to see molecularly precise technologies develop on and around this beautiful planet. Molecularly yours, -BC BC Crandall Molecular Realities < http://www.well.com/~bcc/MolecularRealities.html > 281 Molino Avenue, Mill Valley, California 94941 USA Vox: 415.383.7828 Fax: 415.381.6122 Net: bcc@well.com < Keith: I am new to the list. I will stop saying this next week -a joke :) I take very seriously BC's idea of meme's as powerfull 'Attractors" that can change, infect, catalyze, reorganize our thinking, our society, world and history itself. The cosmos is a meme in that it is MY organized construct of something that may be chaotic. By talking about it I give it organization, if only the organization I choose to give it. Thus when one talks about God one gives him the clothes one has in one's own closet so to speak. God is forced to walk in my wardrobe as I talk about him for good or bad. Those with enough gold can structure art, music , architecture, political process etc to make God walk and talk and live in their HOUSE OF GOD. Of course the real HOLY SPIRIT does not walk or live anywhere it doesn't belong. If my heart is a ready receptive vessel, the HS will warm and move my heart, limbs and digits as if they were leaves on a Holy Tree of Life. I for one feel that MEMES are like the eastern notion of skandas are karmic debts and asssets. I for one have accellerated and activated a lot memes that have been placed in my molecular mind's storage by centuries of discourse. As the memes fight for dominance and survival, my whole biological environement becomes activated and upset. Some find me hard to deal with and eccentric to say the least. Yet in the long wrong, I think that some of us must be the coocreater of "islands" of community and competence" while although the overly controlled "professional" actors -can you say OJ?- seem to benefit from their "sanity". Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:18:43 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Full Moon in Sagittarius Message-ID: <961124191843_354055931@emout01.mail.aol.com> And of one is not up to meditating that day, get out the old slingshot and when the fat person bends over.... Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:44:22 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: A World Wide Web copy of K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. Message-ID: <199611250244.TAA12748@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my paper titled K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. I will be answering individually in the near future all e-mail concerning this paper. In the meantime I want to announce that the paper has now been published on the World Wide Web. The URL address is as follows: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm This WWW version is still considered a draft copy although the complete text of the paper will be found at this WWW site. But italics need to be added to the whole text. This will be done in the next few days. Also the appendix written by David Reigle is slow downloading. This will also be corrected in the near future. If K. Paul Johnson decides to write a reply to my paper, I will be most happy to also publish his reply at the same WWW site. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:30:43 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sex vs Karma Message-ID: <329912E3.58B5@sprynet.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > As for Sodom & Gomoraha, we have to remember > who wrote the story. Who wrote the story? And where was it specified, if anywhere, that the evil in Sodom and Gommorah was sexual in nature? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:13:35 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Sex, Celibacy, & Chastity Message-ID: <961125001334_1318904512@emout04.mail.aol.com> Alan, Well, considering all the fun I had getting it, I'll put up the occasional twinge. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 12:04:21 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Welcome! Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Alan wrote: > > Theosophy International welcomes it's 50th member, Ilona from Lithuania! > > Ilona has no local theosophical contact, and would welcome hearing from > you. E-mail to hoplt@inbox.tdd.lt Alan ... is she able to be on the list ... or do we need to write her personally? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:26:53 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Re: Welcome! Message-ID: In message , JRC writes >On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Alan wrote: > >> >> Theosophy International welcomes it's 50th member, Ilona from Lithuania! >> >> Ilona has no local theosophical contact, and would welcome hearing from >> you. E-mail to hoplt@inbox.tdd.lt > >Alan ... is she able to be on the list ... or do we need to write her >personally? > -JRC > Ahh. I sent the usual TI info files and an e-mail, both of which my server returned as failed mail. I have resent them both. Maybe the other end is not online 24 hours? Anyhow, if anyone has better success I would be pleased to hear it. So, TI folk, please e-mail Ilona as above! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:11:19 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Sex vs Karma Message-ID: <961125101118_1352388372@emout20.mail.aol.com> While we're on the subject, where does it state any evils that were going on in Sodom and Gomorrah? Seems like the folks there were just having fun and boring old Jehovah threw one of his hissy fits. If ever there was a deity totally unworthy of worship, or even respect for that matter... Chuck the Heretic "Mommy, John and I are going out to break some commandments." "That's nice, Charles, just be back by dinner." dialogue from the "Life of the Heretic" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:45:58 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter excerptsfind it from some other source. Message-ID: <3299B123.4985@earthlink.net> > *Invalid* procedure in law if the original author has been dead for 50 > years or more (USA) or 70 years or more (Europe). When did KH die? (if > indeed he is the author of the 1900 letter). It seems to me that your > "permission" is a little presumptuous. Nyet on point of law, email posts can always be copyrighted by the poster. If someone wants to use the letter for any reason other than non-profit goodwill then they can find it from some other source. The assumption of the presumption is presumptious. K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I believe (perhaps using a different mayavirupa). P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:03:09 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: The 1900 Letter Inconsistencies Message-ID: <3299B528.45D6@earthlink.net> > Your claim to copyright in this work is illegal. Subscribers please > note that no permission from anyone is required to republish this > letter. The accusation of illegality is false. Email posts are always copyrightable. The letter can be found in many places and if someone wants to use it for some reason other than non-profit goodwill then they can find it from some other source. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:10:36 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <3299B6E5.1A40@earthlink.net> > This is the most outrageous and silly thing that I have > ever heard. It is pure disinformation. There is almost > no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on > any subject. Yes, there is,specifically on this topic. The purpose of sex is to bring children into the world. > In any case, modern psychology has clearly > demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy, > and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche. As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such demonstration. For physical intimacy to be valid it must be concordant with the agreement to have children. > So, if your statement is true, then the Mahatma's are > plain wrong. The Mahatma's are right, your assessment as to the position of modern psychology is innaccurate. > I agree that some Mahatmas make this claim, > but hardly all, Yes, all do (is there a statement of counter example?) > and those who do obviously know nothing > of the human need for intimacy-- The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our true needs perfectly. Modern psychology is beginning to understand the relation of sex to the human psyche. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:28:28 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Help the Scorpios Message-ID: <199611252028.NAA04317@snowden.micron.net> Jim writes: >The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of Scorpio, and >from the vision that always follows testing. What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:10:19 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <9611260210.AA10251@toto.csustan.edu> >> *Invalid* procedure in law if the original author has been >>dead for 50 years or more (USA) or 70 years or more (Europe). >>When did KH die? (if indeed he is the author of the 1900 >>letter). It seems to me that your "permission" is a little >>presumptuous. >Nyet on point of law, email posts can always be copyrighted by >the poster. You may copyright email that is your own intellectual property, but unless you are "K.H." or his literary heir, you may not copyright his letter. >If someone wants to use the letter for any reason other than >non-profit goodwill then they can find it from some other >source. The assumption of the presumption is presumptious. I respect your intent, but you may not claim ownership to something that does not belong to you. Sorry. >K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I believe >(perhaps using a different mayavirupa). In that case, it is up to "K.H." to claim the copyright. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:15:52 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: The Purpose of Sex (resolved) Message-ID: <329A28A6.1523@earthlink.net> In other words, even if the purpose of sex is to bring chidren into the world, we can remember that it takes time for perfection of purpose to manifest. We are all imperfect (Duh!) and it's ok! as solutions will come through evolution. Love, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:30:35 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sex vs Karma Message-ID: In message <329912E3.58B5@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >Jerry Schueler wrote: > >> As for Sodom & Gomoraha, we have to remember >> who wrote the story. > > Who wrote the story? And where was it specified, if anywhere, that the >evil in Sodom and Gommorah was sexual in nature? > > Bart Lidofsky It *could* be inferred from Genesis 19:5, where the inhabitants of Sodom want to "know" the men who are with Lot (the guy who had a salt wife). The Henrew word used *can* have a sexual implication, and the OT is famous for people "knowing" each other, but there is no direct evidence to support this meaning other than tradition - which is sometimes true, or based on truth. Gen 13:13 memerly says that the inhabitants of Sodom were wicked. Tradition has given us the word "sodomite" - the meaning of which is clear enough. I forgot why this mattered to anyone :-) Anyhow, wickedness, like beauty, all too often lies in the eye of the beholder. Hmmmph. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:07:42 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex (resolved) Message-ID: <961126010742_1917600942@emout11.mail.aol.com> Wrong! The bringing rug rats into the world is only one purpose (and from the standpoint of human behavior) a very minor and highly inconvenient purpose. Perfect sex has absolutely nothing to do with children. It's sole purpose is pleasure for the participants. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:02:00 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Osinovsky Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: Patrick, Thank you for your intelligent post. I feel your judgments are based on extensive knowledge and experience, so they are not so easily dismissed by someone who is armed with merely insults and verbal objections like "silly," "most outrageous," and "obviously." "Obviously" reasonable discussion is to be based on shared knowledge rather that ignorance, especially militant and aggressive ignorance. Max On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > > This is the most outrageous and silly thing that I have > > ever heard. It is pure disinformation. There is almost > > no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on > > any subject. > > Yes, there is,specifically on this topic. The purpose of sex is to > bring children into the world. > > > In any case, modern psychology has clearly > > demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy, > > and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche. > > As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such > demonstration. For physical intimacy to be valid it must be concordant > with the agreement to have children. > > > So, if your statement is true, then the Mahatma's are > > plain wrong. > > The Mahatma's are right, your assessment as to the position of > modern psychology is innaccurate. > > > I agree that some Mahatmas make this claim, > > but hardly all, > > Yes, all do (is there a statement of counter example?) > > > and those who do obviously know nothing > > of the human need for intimacy-- > > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our > true needs perfectly. Modern psychology is beginning to understand the > relation of sex to the human psyche. > > P > -- > *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA > *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:34:30 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > > This is the most outrageous and silly thing that I have > > ever heard. It is pure disinformation. There is almost > > no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on > > any subject. > Yes, there is,specifically on this topic. The purpose of sex is to > bring children into the world. There *may* be, on a very few topics, *apparent* unanimity among the *exoteric writings* of the *few adepts* that have allowed their names to be used in the public realm - but this certainly does not even begin to justify such an absolute statement ... and I have found no such unanimity in the very few places those small amounts of writings mention sex - and even further, would not expect to. "The purpose of sex is to bring children into the world" is almost unbelievably simplistic ... and they are not (whatever they are) simplistic beings ... > > In any case, modern psychology has clearly > > demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy, > > and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche. > As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such > demonstration. For physical intimacy to be valid it must be concordant > with the agreement to have children. *What* psychology? Psychology is a *science* ... you may disagree with those researchers that have tried to demonstrate various links between sex, intimacy, and psychological health ... may argue with their statistics, methods of demonstration, or premises, but you rather betray yourself with your second statement - which a normative statement, a *personal value judgement* ... "psychology" would no more say physical intimacy must be allied with the agreement to have children to be "valid" than economics would say that money must be used by free market system to be "valid" - though many economists might *personally* prefer free markets to closed ones. > > So, if your statement is true, then the Mahatma's are > > plain wrong. > The Mahatma's are right, your assessment as to the position of > modern psychology is innaccurate. Both statements are (IMO) somewhat inaccurate - "modern psychology" is not some single entity with a unanimous opinion (of course, neither are "the Mahatmas") - the link between sex, intimacy, and health is one about which much is written in the literature of the field, and while the first statement does portray a dominant current of thought, it is certainly not the only one ... but I would very much like to see any peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal, any book by a reputable psychologist, that actually attempts to make the case that the "purpose" of sex is children. Even *biologists* ... who focus solely on the physical aspect of things ... would not say that the *only* purpose of sex was procreation. And the field of psychology, perhaps more than any other, has spent a century exploring the vast array of different motivations and ends resident in our sexuality. > > I agree that some Mahatmas make this claim, > > but hardly all, > Yes, all do (is there a statement of counter example?) I wonder what we mean by "Mahatmas" here? Patrick, are you speaking of the TS Adepts? Are you reading Alice Bailey? *Who* are the one's you are talking about? Its hard to find a "counter-example" when I don't even remember seeing an example ... but (as a for instance) my edition of the Mahatma Letters mentions two references in its index under "sex": The first is about gender (rather than "sex" the way we are using the word), and the second is the infamous 12th Letter - the one in which KH slams religion - and says the following: "..."Food, sexual relations, drink, are all natural necessities of life; yet excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental and physical, and the latter are transmitted as the greatest evils to future generations .... All this then - food, wealth, ambition, and a thousand other things we have to leave unmentioned, becomes the source and cause of evil whether in its abundance or through its absence." These are quite sane sentiments - seem to recognize the basic drives resident in human beings, and rightly suggest that health is a matter of balance - of *recognizing* the drives and achieving the balance between surplus and lack. (No mention of sex being reserved only for procreation I notice). > > and those who do obviously know nothing > > of the human need for intimacy-- > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our > true needs perfectly. Modern psychology is beginning to understand the > relation of sex to the human psyche. Yes ... and in the letter just mentioned, apparently understand sexual relations to be one of those basic needs. Sexuality (IMO), as with virtually all significant components of the human psyche, does not have one, but indeed multiple "purposes" - to attempt to reduce it to some one single one ... and to further then try to hold that *all* the "Mahatmas" hold a unanimous view of the subject - a view that hasn't had much credibility since the Enlightenment (and only was held by small Christian sects prior to that) - just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You may choose to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation, and that only within that context is sex "valid" (whatever the devil that means) ... but not only don't the writings of either "the Mahatmas" or modern psychology unanimously support such a thesis, many of the writings of both would argue vigorously against it. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:30:22 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Copyright Message-ID: In message <3299B528.45D6@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes >> Your claim to copyright in this work is illegal. Subscribers please >> note that no permission from anyone is required to republish this >> letter. > > The accusation of illegality is false. Email posts are always >copyrightable. The letter can be found in many places and if someone >wants to use it for some reason other than non-profit goodwill then they >can find it from some other source. Your post is copyright. Works that you quote are either copyright by the author, or the author's estate, or after 50 years from the death of the author (USA) or 70 years (Europe). You could only claim copyright on a quotation if you had inherited the copyright thereto. Consult your public library, or ask any writers' or authors' organisation. Please cease to claim copyright in works in the pubic domain. I will complain EVERY TIME you do so. As JRC has pointed out in another post, your claims for various ideas are, as I understand him, based upon very little or indeed any evidence. > Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:32:39 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Copyright 1900 letter excerpts Message-ID: In message <3299B123.4985@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes > K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I believe >(perhaps using a different mayavirupa). Then you should obtain his written permission to claim copyright in his work. He has not posted anything via e-mail - YOU have. Good grief. Go get an education. [I am *very* angry about this]. AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:26:25 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <329B19F4.1866@earthlink.net> > You may copyright email that is your own intellectual property, > but unless you are "K.H." or his literary heir, you may not > copyright his letter. Quite right, however letters that are reproduced in email or magazines are protected by the copyright thereof. In other words a person can't then reproduce the letter unless they find it from some other source. As a general rule when I quote extensively from the M's writings I attach a copyright notice. > >If someone wants to use the letter for any reason other than > >non-profit goodwill then they can find it from some other > >source. The assumption of the presumption is presumptious. > > I respect your intent, but you may not claim ownership to > something that does not belong to you. Sorry. It is not ownership but source copyright as described above. > >K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I believe > >(perhaps using a different mayavirupa). > > In that case, it is up to "K.H." to claim the copyright. Interestingly I originally found the text of the letter in a public forum on compuserve. After downloading it and reading it I went back to the forum in order to find who posted it and inquire as to the copyright. Peculiarly I could not find the posting in a search and so had no one to assign a source copyright to. Thus, not knowing that it was found in any other place I attached a "goodwill non-profit" clause to it whenever I posted it. Life's adventures, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:38:09 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex (resolved) Message-ID: <329B1CEA.3A60@earthlink.net> > The bringing rug rats into the world is only one purpose (and from the > standpoint of human behavior) a very minor and highly inconvenient purpose. > Perfect sex has absolutely nothing to do with children. It's sole purpose > is pleasure for the participants. Nyet. The only purpose of sex is to bring children into the world. Pat the Cleric -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:48:52 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <329B1F6B.224@earthlink.net> > You may choose to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation, > and that only within that context is sex "valid" > but not only don't the writings of either "the Mahatmas" or > modern psychology unanimously support such a thesis, many of the writings > of both would argue vigorously against it. The Mahatma's writings (K.H., D.K., M., etc.) do not say that sex has any purpose other than procreation (and throughout the primary focus is on sex as an act of physical creation which is its purpose) -- also it is recognized that the current level of human evolution does necessitate for most (with karmically determined exceptions) cyclical sex for a healthy balanced life with the acceptance of the natural consequences (pregnancy) thereof. Modern scientific psychology understands very little of the sex issue but the research will eventually lead toward this understanding. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:40:23 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Quest Bookstore Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961126164023.006dbba0@xs4all.nl> I was recommended in this group to order books of K.Paul Johnson, and Peter Washington from Quest Bookstore. I preferred a Theosophical enterprise and choose them. I put in twice an order on their Web-site by E-mail providing my credit-card number more than a fortnight ago. So far I haven't heard a word of them! Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:21:18 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Perfected? Message-ID: In message <3299B6E5.1A40@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our >true needs perfectly. This is "proof by assertion." A *modern* demonstration of the evidence to support this, to me, ludicrous statement is the minimum requirement for any level of support for such an idea. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:33:44 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: Thank you Jerry! Alan In message <9611260210.AA10251@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes > >>> *Invalid* procedure in law if the original author has been >>>dead for 50 years or more (USA) or 70 years or more (Europe). >>>When did KH die? (if indeed he is the author of the 1900 >>>letter). It seems to me that your "permission" is a little >>>presumptuous. > >>Nyet on point of law, email posts can always be copyrighted by >>the poster. > >You may copyright email that is your own intellectual property, >but unless you are "K.H." or his literary heir, you may not >copyright his letter. > >>If someone wants to use the letter for any reason other than >>non-profit goodwill then they can find it from some other >>source. The assumption of the presumption is presumptious. > >I respect your intent, but you may not claim ownership to >something that does not belong to you. Sorry. > >>K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I believe >>(perhaps using a different mayavirupa). > >In that case, it is up to "K.H." to claim the copyright. > > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:42:58 UTC From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Re: Scorpio, part II Message-ID: <199611261542.3075100@microfone.net> Kym asks, in response to an earlier post, >>The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of Scorpio, >>and from the vision that always follows testing. Q. >What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? A. One gets another chance at it. As many as are needed, actually. H.A. Overstreet wrote in THE MATURE MIND, Man matures to the extent that he gains knowledge enough to handle with competent understanding the situation in which he finds himself; and to the extent, also, tht he has the habits and means of gaining further knowledge as his situation changes. He was writing about the psychological maturity of the individual, not astrology. But I think the excerpt above describes both the "stops" we make along the passage around the "wheel of existence" and the whole point of the process. When we "pass the test" of a particular sign, we *mature* in the definition that Overstreet gives. On the flip side, when we do not "handle with competent understanding the situation in which we find ourselves," we do not gain from the experience; we do not have the extended vision that comes with essential understanding and so we cannot see the next step ahead, anyway. So the process repeats. It has to, if we think about it, because without the change in consciousness ("the extended vision") that comes with the maturity of a "handled situation" (sign), there is no chance for seeing past where we find ourselves at any particular point along the way. Arrested development, to drop back from astrology to psychological terms. Jim --- "Raid kills bugs dead" -- Lee Welch, American haiku poet From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:35:07 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Help the Scorpios Message-ID: In message <199611252028.NAA04317@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Jim writes: > >>The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of Scorpio, >and >from the vision that always follows testing. > >What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? > >Kym > More Scorpio? Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:26:31 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <961126192627_1486191091@emout08.mail.aol.com> The Heretic being serious now: The question is much more far reaching than sex, which we are going to enjoy without procreation no matter what anyone says, but the nature of the Mahatmas themselves. If, in fact, they ascribe to such an obnoxious, silly, stupid, ignorant, foolish, moronic, idiotic and evil doctrine, one that has caused so much harm to so many people through the years, how is it possible to pay attention to anything else they have to say? How can anyone be guided by the opinions of those who betray such a total ignorance of human psychology and needs, who betray a total lack of sympathy for or understanding of human behavior? I have seen the results of that doctrine in the life of someone very close to me and if that is what the Mahatmas teach, then I say to hell with them! Let them join the Pope in playing pass the choirboy because that's all they are good for. Yet for the life of me I cannot imagine those who express such concern for the "sufferings of orphan humanity" would ascribe to a doctrine that has done so much to multiply those sufferings. Either there has been an error of interpretation or words have been put in their mouths by some with a peculiar and bizarre agenda. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:11:07 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sex vs Karma Message-ID: <329BA33B.7779@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <329912E3.58B5@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky > writes > >Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > >> As for Sodom & Gomoraha, we have to remember > >> who wrote the story. > > > > Who wrote the story? And where was it specified, if anywhere, that the > >evil in Sodom and Gommorah was sexual in nature? > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > It *could* be inferred from Genesis 19:5, where the inhabitants of Sodom .. > I forgot why this mattered to anyone :-) I dislike it when someone puts down a religion or a religious book and blithely assumes that all agree with him, and therefore needs no evidence. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 01:42:27 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 738 Message-ID: <199611270842.BAA21320@snowden.micron.net> Patrick wrote: >Nyet. >The only purpose of sex is to bring children into the world. > >Pat the Cleric I think the scariest part of all this discussion is that right now the "Clerics" among us have the ear of the world. It is through and from the distortion and manipulation of the messages from the "enlightened" ones (God, Mahatmas, Muhammad, etc) that their power comes. We see the results of their words, their "commandments," in the Third and Fourth World - and we see the results of their "commandments" in America. Their unwavering commitment to falsities is seen as a symbol of strength and power - even those of us who recognize this cannot help but be amazed at their steely determination. And the loudness of their voices. I am not troubled by what the "Clerics" say, but at how many people actually believe them. . .or fear to question them. Numerically, the "clerics" carry the biggest stick. However temporary. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:16:29 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The Sodom thing Message-ID: <199611270916.CAA21447@snowden.micron.net> Bart wrote: >> Who wrote the story? And where was it specified, if anywhere, that the >>evil in Sodom and Gommorah was sexual in nature? Alan wrote: >It *could* be inferred from Genesis 19:5, where the inhabitants of Sodom >want to "know" the men who are with Lot (the guy who had a salt wife). >The Henrew word used *can* have a sexual implication, and the OT is >famous for people "knowing" each other, but there is no direct evidence >to support this meaning other than tradition - which is sometimes true, >or based on truth. Gen 13:13 memerly says that the inhabitants of Sodom >were wicked. Tradition has given us the word "sodomite" - the meaning >of which is clear enough. I think the clincher that it is sexual in nature is when Lot scurried out of his house to address the "knowing" demands of the Sodomites by imploring them not to do the "wicked" thing, but to instead take his "two virgin daughters." Seems being Lot's guest was far more advantageous than being his daughter. (G. 19:3-8) However, God, clearly showing his homophobic side, destroyed Sodom - but found Lot to be worthy of saving. How nice. 'Course then God made Lot "the guy who had a salt wife." Which showed a grave lack of foresight, since that somehow implied to the daughters that it now was their duty to carry on the "clan" and they then raped their father - after realizing their father wouldn't let them marry anyone. I don't think God knows what He's doing or what He really wants here - He's just got bigger lightening bolts than the rest of us. . .which may show size does matter. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:30:59 UTC From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: typo error Message-ID: <199611271130.3120900@microfone.net> > "Raid kills bugs dead" > -- Lee Welch, American haiku poet Should read LOU Welch, American haiku poet. Copyright of a Master, if you think about it in the right way... Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:31:55 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter excerpts Message-ID: <329C26A5.493B@earthlink.net> > Then you should obtain his written permission to claim copyright in his > work. He has not posted anything via e-mail - YOU have. Good grief. > > Go get an education. [I am *very* angry about this]. I have never claimed ownership copyright on his letter, simply source protection, you have misinterpreted my statements. Given the way I found the letter on the net (mentioned in another post), the action was appropriate. Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:40:01 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Perfected? Message-ID: <329C288A.356A@earthlink.net> > > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our > >true needs perfectly. > > This is "proof by assertion." A *modern* demonstration of the evidence > to support this, to me, ludicrous statement is the minimum requirement > for any level of support for such an idea. By definition a Master or Mahatma is perfected in relation to the human experience. When the basic rules of discipleship (as illustrated in the book "The Voice of the Silence" for example) are followed the evidence follows also. P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:37:44 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter also Message-ID: <329C3612.5D3B@earthlink.net> > > Then you should obtain his written permission to claim copyright in his > > work. He has not posted anything via e-mail - YOU have. Good grief. The way I found it places it under the ancient document rules of publication :-) ... Cheers, P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:45:56 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter and also Message-ID: <329C37FD.3FE1@earthlink.net> > > Then you should obtain his written permission to claim copyright in his > > work. He has not posted anything via e-mail - YOU have. Good grief. > > > > Go get an education. [I am *very* angry about this]. As it has now been demonstrated that the letter is in the public domain (rather than just published in several places) then, of course, it is unnecessary to attach a copyright notice. Civilized discussion always leads to solution. - Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:11:23 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Mahatmas on Sex Message-ID: <199611271410.JAA00064@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: THEOS-L digest 738 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi folks, It's nice to return to theos-l when you are discussing such interesting topics. > > K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I believe > (perhaps using a different mayavirupa). Bill Clinton? > > Yes, there is,specifically on this topic. The purpose of sex is to > bring children into the world. Why does this sound like something I heard in my Catholic girls' high school? One has to consider that males and females are infertile at various times of their lives, yet still engage in sexual activity. One can only surmise that people view the act as something other than one of procreation, or they would not be participating in the act when they were unable to conceive. It must have deep symbolic meaning other than the chance of conception. One wonders what significance sex has to animals. Perhaps their coupling is closer to the purist's view of sex equaling reproduction. Man is a more complicated creature. > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our > true needs perfectly. Don't they say something similar about the pope? > > ------------------------------ > > The Mahatma's writings (K.H., D.K., M., etc.) do not say that sex > has any purpose other than procreation (and throughout the primary focus > is on sex as an act of physical creation which is its purpose) -- also > it is recognized that the current level of human evolution does > necessitate for most (with karmically determined exceptions) cyclical > sex for a healthy balanced life with the acceptance of the natural > consequences (pregnancy) thereof. How does the issue of overpopulation figure into this last sentence, not to mention a whole host of other issues - including sterlization, family planning, birth control? If we accept the natural consequences, then are we not bound to also support those people who have had more children than they can feed? Are we not also responsible to make sure they receive a good education, so they will be productive citizens? Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:52:41 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Mahatmas on Sex Message-ID: <329C476C.925@earthlink.net> > issues - including sterlization, family > planning, birth control? The difficulties implicit in these issues are a result of the overstimulation of the emotional interests (mostly glamours) in sex, rather than the physical need itself. > If we accept the natural consequences, then > are we not bound to also support those people who have had more > children than they can feed? The planet could easily support 10-15 billion people. The current food distribution problems and the mass problems are a result mostly of wrong economics and the gov't manipulation of trade systems. (see http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html ) With the elimination of unequal taxation and an end to tariffs these problems would resolve themselves today. Also when the sex impulse follows natural cycles (gradually as the glamours about it are dissipitated) population distribution will be naturally balanced. > Are we not also responsible to make > sure they receive a good education, so they will be productive > citizens? When there is the above mentioned economic freedom then the educational process naturally evolves along lines described by M. Montessori in local communities. Shanti, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:48:13 EST From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Failing tests of Scorpio Message-ID: <70806D5C35@CRLS.Hall.Public.LIB.GA.US> Kim wrote: >>Jim writes: >>The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of >>Scorpio,and from the vision that always follows testing. >What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? >Kym I think you have to go directly to Gemini. Do not pass Aries. Go Directly to Gemini and you do not collect any really deep experiences! ...That is, of course, if you don't have a "Get out of Gemini free" card. If you do, roll the dice again. :) Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library System Gainesville, Georgia (USA) llucas@crls.hall.public.lib.ga.us 770-532-3311 FAX 770-532-4305 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:53:52 EST From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Failing tests of Scorpio Message-ID: <70806D199C@CRLS.Hall.Public.LIB.GA.US> Kim and Jim: Jim writes: >The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of >Scorpio,and from the vision that always follows testing. What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? Kym I think one has to go back to Gemini. DO NOT PASS AIRES! Go directly to Gemini. Do not collect any really, really deep, mysterious experiences. ...That is, if you don't have a "Get out of Gemini FREE" card. If you do, roll the dice again! :) Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library System Gainesville, Georgia (USA) llucas@crls.hall.public.lib.ga.us 770-532-3311 FAX 770-532-4305 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:11:55 EST From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Failing tests of Scorpio Message-ID: <70A01138D0@CRLS.Hall.Public.LIB.GA.US> Kim and Jim, >>Jim writes: >>The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of >>Scorpio,and from the vision that always follows testing. >What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? >Kym I think you must go directly to Gemini. DO NOT PASS ARIES! Do not collect any really, really deep and mystical experiences. ...That is, if you don't have a "Get out Gemini FREE" card. If you do, roll the dice again! :) Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library System Gainesville, Georgia (USA) llucas@crls.hall.public.lib.ga.us 770-532-3311 FAX 770-532-4305 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:23:03 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Yet for the life of me I cannot imagine those who express such concern for > the "sufferings of orphan humanity" would ascribe to a doctrine that has done > so much to multiply those sufferings. Either there has been an error of > interpretation or words have been put in their mouths by some with a peculiar > and bizarre agenda. Chuck ... prob'ly both - there is absolutely no place I could find in the SD, the ML, or even Bailey writings (let alone the writings of western occultism - which on the whole is rather more lusty than eastern) where it is stated that the sole "purpose" of sex is procreation ... in fact in PA's last post he says merely that they always talk about sex in connection with procreation - and IMO that is a *far* cry from saying that *all* the Masters are in complete accord on the fact ... or in fact from saying that even *one* Master believes it. And while the posts *have* made my lover (who may well herself be a Master of some sort) make a wider variety of laughing noises than I would ever have imagined existed, my tendency would be to not say another word on the subject - as the fellow seems intent on digging himself in deeper and deeper with every response - but I am just a tad concerned that visitors to the list may come away believing that Theosophy is nothing but a ridiculous atavistic sect of hyper-conservatives ... in fact most of the writings of the "Mahatmas" seem (IMO) to contain a very sound and pragmatic (if clearly unorthodox) understanding of human psychology - and so far as I've been able to find in my modest library, *none* of them have ever stated that the sole purpose of sex was to have children. What I would like to add is that (for those that run TS meetings) when I was part of the Ravalli County Branch, we decided once to run a set of meetings simply titled "The role of sexuality in spirituality" - and the turnout was not only enormous, but the meetings were also quite interesting (our Branch did not try to tell people what to believe - merely attempted to present a few standard TS ideas by way of introduction, and then facilitate discussion) ... what we found was that the issue of where to place spirituality in the context of a spiritual life, how to integrate sexual desire into a holistic personality, are *huge* issues that a lot of people have been silently wrestling with - and really appreciated a place in which to be able to explore different perspectives with other intelligent and inquisitive people. I came away from the meetings believing that while one may come to conclusions for oneself, there *is* no single answer to the question, no single approach that is "correct" for every person - sex *cannot* be discussed in a vaccuum, seperate frrom the entirety of one's life, the nature of one's vitality, total personality structure, culture, and specific spiritual purposes for which one incarnated. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:26:05 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Failing tests of Scorpio Message-ID: > >>The strength of Sagittarius comes from having passed the tests of > >>Scorpio,and from the vision that always follows testing. > > >What does one become/get when one DOESN'T pass the tests of Scorpio? One has to *marry* a scorpio - which is a far bigger test than being one. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Nov 96 11:22:15 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Trials of Scorpio leads to the court of Sag - ask OJ! Message-ID: <961127162214_74024.3352_BHT185-1@CompuServe.COM> You know, if you can't handle love, sex, jealousy, drugs, power, money, illusion, illuion, illusion, you have to get in those Italian slippers, get on the Bronco and do what you gotta do! But you might end up in court, with the Sagitarians. Look at OJ, now there is a man who needs theosophy. WIll he get it next lifetime? I say, the sooner the better! Namste Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Nov 96 11:22:40 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Purpose of Sex - Polarity demands reunion Message-ID: <961127162239_74024.3352_BHT185-2@CompuServe.COM> Sex is the joining or rejoining of two enteties. Two enteties presupposes polarity. The number 1 is perfect unity. The number 2 is imperfect polartiy, and 3 gives us a temporary rejoing of the two into one which release a moment of re-membering the perfection of the one. Polarity demands dynamism. One can be static, but two itches for the scratch of reunion, communion and connection of energy flow leading to release,consciousness and dissappation of the inherent tension of being two things. Art is similar to sex and power in that the subject seeks and object or two subjects (at least) seek to make an object out of each other. Not to preach to the choir, but to cut to the chase, the goal is Beauty or organization out or polarity and even Chaos. The constant restructuring of the elements brings new forms of primal Beauty. Humanity has a love, a feeling of beauty which is like Truth, but on a much more irrational level. Truth can be analysize, purified, pinned like a butterfly to wall. But Beaty seems to transcend the form even more than truth. A logical equation is one thing, but an elegant theory is a joy to behold. The purpose of sex is not really just to make children, or satisfy an itch, a hunger, but is symbolic on the physical level of our need, our primal need for beauty which is as necessary as air and water. The beauty of polarity rejoined creates a warmth, a glow, an energy flow through the spinal column of our being and the GREAT BEING of the universe itself Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Nov 96 11:22:43 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: I love WICKED WITCHES Message-ID: <961127162242_74024.3352_BHT185-3@CompuServe.COM> To Auntie EM and all at Kansatona - I am sure you are having a wonderful time. Frankly, I hate Kansas, I hate the farm, and I'm taking the dog. - Dorothy (latest member of the union of good witches) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:28:08 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Problems of Humanity Message-ID: <329C6C18.76DD@eden.com> There are many interesting posts on the issue of sex and spirituality. When one looks at the problems of people around the world -- wars/killings, hunger, homelessness and all the ugly things that we are now able to see in our living rooms via television, it looks like the primary and main focus of the efforts of the Enlightened Beings is to deal with the inhumanity and cruelty that goes on. Sex and related issues, IMHO, while very important, appears to be of a lower priority. This may explain why there is not much discussion in the correspondence in ML and elsewhere on the issue of Sex. Can we, those who are fortunate to be exposed to Theosophy/theosophy, try to make our humble contribution to the welfare of all living creatures - from the humble ant to the highest Enlightened Beings? That is my wish for the Thanksgiving. MKR Wednesday 27 Nov 1996 - 10.27 AM CDT USA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Nov 96 11:45:36 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Tragic BEAUTY - Sympathy for the devil and OJ - Soul Symphony Message-ID: <961127164535_74024.3352_BHT216-1@CompuServe.COM> A parting shot about Beauty. It would seem that the PERFECT ONE allows polarity, imperfection and decay, entropy, death, ugliness pain and that simply because the experience of Beauty is so blissfull even if it requires the polarity of uginess, and death. Perfection is one thing but Beauty is always just skin deep, with a flaw an achilles heel, an aching soulful tragic lacking, a god manque, so to speak. You alway hurt the one you love. You always take the sweetest rose and crush it till the petals fall _ Masters Ink Spots So I think many people feel sympathy for the devil, sympathy for those swept up in the trials of life. In tragedy, we cannot help but be moved of the dross of the insignificant, we are purged of the pettty and prostrated before the sometimes "only pretty". Just for argument's sake, say OJ was filled with the desire to posses this blonde goddes. The Othello like OJ was driven to jealousy by the simpleton Iago/Goldman who was a pawn in the power play of the filthy rich and famous. Goldman wanted the gold, man!, not the princess bride, I bet.. OJ filled with juice of jealousy had to kill both. They represented, like Mishimas's deforemed monk in THE GOLDEN PAVILLION, a beaurty that was insulting because how could one so ugly live up to its BEAUTY that accueses, taunts, conjoles, insites to burn, to riot, to destroy for spite. The good, the true, the beautiful, must be destroyed because they for the ugle, the incompetent, the stupid are proof of one's superfulousness. It is the ordinary that is de trop. The beautiful is a gift, and echo of the divine that is too beautiful to bear. I can understand OJ. Some have given him carte blanch with Drakkar Noir. If he did it, leave him to Heaven! Namaste Keith PRice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:55:36 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: <961127115536_1717314205@emout10.mail.aol.com> I was reading Dr. Johanna Budwig, the "flax oil lady," the other day. I suppose some traces of our previous "brotherhood" discussion remained in my subconscious, because the thought suddenly occurred to me: "If I did not know who the author was, would there be anything about this writing which indicates it is the work of a woman?" No. Many, many other female authors also seem to fit this "gender-free" category--H.P.B., Anne Besant, Alice Bailey, Joy Mills, Margaret Mead, Pearl S. Buck, Gertrude Stein, etc., just for a few examples. Then something else started bothering me: Given that it is so obvious that ~brotherhood~ is a "male-associated" word once it is pointed out, why was it possible that it could have included females for so long without most people giving it much of a second thought? Were the people of past generations stupid or what? Then, of course, we have the right/left, male/female cerebral hemisphere people who speak so authoritatively on a fundamental difference between men and women. Certainly, I don't know enough about brain science to gainsay their research, but I cannot but help wondering if all of this is not really more appropriate to describe individuals who still predominently utilize desire-mental (kama-manas) consciousness rather than desire-free mental (manas). In other words "female writers" could be those who are still tainted by the desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal package" and "male writers" from another. ~Manas~ itself, they tell me, just comes from the Sanskrit root meaning "thought." ~Mankind~, then would merely be the "thinker-kind." Perhaps it is a major affliction to think like a man or woman. Furthermore, what about the old men and old women? One would have thought that a lifetime of experience as males or females would have sent them so far down their respective gender branches that they would be virtually separate species by old age. I don't know how it looks to you, but I see lots and lots of older women who naturally seem to add the famous "male problem-solving" mode and older men who also become quite comfortable in so-called "female pattern-following." Grandma or Grandpa--what's the big difference after a certain point? Anyway, while I agree that ~brotherhood~ may be losing the inclusive meaning it once had, it is interesting to keep hearing that some people think that a male-dominance conspiracy was responsible for it in the first place. That HPB, in particular, did not kick up a fuss about it makes me doubt this. Who knows? HPB may have even regarded the female-included usage as an ongoing healthy reminder to the males of her day that they ~couldn't~ expropriate for themselves a universal term like ~brotherhood~. Well, in the modern day I suppose many are unwilling to read HPB without at the same time repeating "woman writer," "woman writer," "woman writer" to constantly remind themselves what "gender team" she is on. I don't know . . . I sort of think HPB would have been offended by the demotion of her psyche to the level of either sex. Indeed and similarly, on page 58 of her booklet Dr. Johanna Budwig asks, "What do my breasts have to do with flax oil?" (Okay, I'm lying. . . .) Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:42:44 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter also Message-ID: <3VdLmKAkNFnyEw$s@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <329C3612.5D3B@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes >> > Then you should obtain his written permission to claim copyright in his >> > work. He has not posted anything via e-mail - YOU have. Good grief. > > The way I found it places it under the ancient document rules of >publication :-) ... > >Cheers, >P No cheers. You have NO CLAIM. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:40:31 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter excerpts Message-ID: In message <329C26A5.493B@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes > I have never claimed ownership copyright on his letter, simply >source protection, you have misinterpreted my statements. Given the way >I found the letter on the net (mentioned in another post), the action >was appropriate. Wrong. Claiming "source protection" - what is that supposed to mean? the copyright belongs to the author or his heirs or the public domain. You can claim NOTHING with regard to it. AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:55:15 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Krotona/Wheaton - Historical Info. Message-ID: In the recent issue of The Krotonian, there is a short summary of the history behind Krotona. There was a time when both Krotona Institute and the National Headquarters of TSA were in Hollywood in one place. In 1924, the property was sold and an equitable division of assets were agreed upon between ES and TSA. Later Wheton property was purchased and Olcott was established an National HQ of TSA. Would any historian throw some light on the background info to the above. Could it be that the national HQ may have been located Ojai instead of Wheaton? Why of all locations Wheaton was preferred and purchased? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:41:03 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961128135319.1de7fa0a@iprolink.co.nz> Patrick writes >> There is almost no such thing as "according to ALL of the Mahatma's" on >> any subject. > > Yes, there is,specifically on this topic. The purpose of sex is to >bring children into the world. [and later] >The only purpose of sex is to bring children into the world. > A masterly feat of rolling together a huge number of facets of reality in a few calm assertions, Patrick! The latest edition of "The Mahatma Letters" contains only 2 references to sex in its index, as JRC noted, one of them basically off this subject. Hardly the basis for some of what you said above, if that's what your basis was. Patrick, I would be most interested to know whether there are other writings from spiritual teachers you consider to be of the Mahatma class, that have more to say on this subject and, if so, what those writings are. If your opinions are not based on written material so much, then what is their basis? Sex is one area where we are definitely called on to use our own abilities to pull the generalities of Theosophical writing down into the practicalities of life. You know, that hard work that HPB told us we had to do! We have to grasp this one and not shy away from it. And not oversimplify it, either. One theosophical author who says some interesting things on sex is Geoffrey Hodson in his "The Miracle of Birth". Quoting part: Clairvoyant research suggests that the principle, by which the perfect synchronisation of an oppositely polarised pair releases energy from higher planes, operates throughout the whole of nature. The life behind the vegetable form, for example, receives a distinct thrill from the planetary life forces which descend into it every time fertilisation occurs. That response quickens its evolution whenever it is experienced. The more highly developed and sensitive of the flowers of the present day are already beginning to respond in increasing measure to the stimulus of that descent of power. [End of quote.] Is quickening the life of the individual less of a "purpose" than producing new individuals, whatever the species? Is the inner life and unfoldment of parents less important than that of children? I believe that a major way that energy released by the interaction of opposites in humans is expressed, beyond the physical plane as well as on it, is in building relationships. This is a hugely creative thing, operating on several levels. As far as bringing children into the world goes, when things go well, this relationship-building leads IMO to the inner equivalent of building a nest, a loving environment where they can develop and eventually find their own wings. Physical sex is just one means by which this creative polarity is expressed, and just one of the polarities relevant to children. Polarity and energy exchange go far beyond nest-building though, of course, and are enormous factors in the life of any human being, sexual expression being just one of the ways by which this can be mediated. Energy exchange like this is in fact the very fabric of our human lives, far beyond the arena of procreative sex, in our participation in the wider structure of society. Think of a time when you worked really well alongside somebody and sparked each other off with ideas, or learnt something from another, or received the gift of love, if only in a fleeting smile. The list of ways in which there is an energy release through the flow between giver and receiver is endless. Two words that express the temporary polarity in energy exchange are "radiant" and "magnetic" - far more expressive and far less loaded than the old terms "masculine" and "feminine" for this purpose. One person can be radiant with respect to another in one way, but magnetic (ie actively receptive) in another way or level, and the roles can switch rapidly in time. There's some healing value in this kind of idea, with respect to society's negative attitudes to kinds of sexuality, and beyond. >> In any case, modern psychology has clearly >> demonstrated that sex is absolutely essential for intimacy, >> and intimacy is absolutely essential for a healthy psyche. > > As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such >demonstration. For physical intimacy to be valid it must be concordant >with the agreement to have children. Responding to both writers here, I think it's more apt to say that intimacy is extremely beneficial for the psyche and that sex is a major way, but by no means the only way, for intimacy to be expressed. Physical intimacy has many forms and only some of them have to do with producing children. All, unless forced on one of the participants, are health-promoting, IMO - a view which I gather is now well supported by psychological research. However, as one trained in science, I would add that scientists are very wary of the word "purpose". It is just about as loaded as "sex", and put the two together .... I mention this because psychologists have definitely been known to have scientific aspirations :-) . Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:29:36 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter excerpts Message-ID: <329CB283.412F@earthlink.net> > Wrong. Claiming "source protection" - what is that supposed to mean? > the copyright belongs to the author or his heirs or the public domain. > You can claim NOTHING with regard to it. Once again, the manner in which the letter is found or received determines copyright procedure. In this context the actions taken are concordant with law. Cheers, Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:33:02 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter also Message-ID: <329CB38C.57FD@earthlink.net> > No cheers. You have NO CLAIM. When the source is obscured, claim for protection is appropriate. Now that it has been shown that the letter is in the public domain then, as said, there is no need for such protection. Happy days, P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:35:56 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Problems of Humanity Message-ID: <329CB439.1ACC@earthlink.net> > There are many interesting posts on the issue of sex and spirituality. > When one looks at the problems of people around the world -- > wars/killings, hunger, homelessness and all the ugly things that we are > now able to see in our living rooms via television, it looks like the > primary and main focus of the efforts of the Enlightened Beings is to > deal with the inhumanity and cruelty that goes on. Yes, all of these issues are resolvable I believe, see http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html - Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:39:29 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Purpose of Sex - Polarity demands reunion Message-ID: <329CB50D.1644@earthlink.net> > The purpose of sex is not really just to make children, or satisfy an itch, a > hunger, The purpose (in a spiritual sense) of sex is indeed to create life on the physical plane, but also other helpful processes do occur. - Patrick -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:45:32 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <329CB677.1B0D@earthlink.net> > Patrick, I would be most interested to know whether there are other writings > from spiritual teachers you consider to be of the Mahatma class, that have > more to say on this subject and, if so, what those writings are. To restate, whenever a Mahatma writes about the purpose of sex it is clear that the purpose is to bring children into the world. (Is there a counter example?) > If your opinions are not based on written material so much, then what is > their basis? Both writings and observations. See http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/seea.html Shanti, P -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:21:08 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Scorpio, part II Message-ID: <961127192107_638384011@emout11.mail.aol.com> Maturity is the first sign of senility. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:22:20 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 738 Message-ID: <961127192219_1519913358@emout13.mail.aol.com> "Kill a Cleric for Christ" Tee shirt seen on Michigan ave. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:22:25 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The Sodom thing Message-ID: <961127192225_1884313742@emout18.mail.aol.com> "Whom thunder hath made greater" Milton, Paradise Lost Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:22:29 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Mahatmas on Sex Message-ID: <961127192229_605656207@emout20.mail.aol.com> Ann, Good to see you back. The way I see it it comes down to this. Either this is a wrong interpretation of something written to keep a bonkers victorian happy (and you have to remember that as late as 1963 there were PSYCHOLOGISTS who held this view) or the Mahatmas really believe it. If the former, let's forget the whole thing and go back to arguing over the wording of the first object (which seems at times to be the sole purpose of this board). If the latter, then the Mahatmas are a pack of loons and best ignored in everything else as well as this. But there is something else that I thought up last night after I sent off my diatribe. considering the activities of Mrs. Besant in promoting birth control, why would she have anything to do with a society that was diametrically opposed to everything she believed? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:22:32 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Mahatmas on Sex Message-ID: <961127192231_1218675215@emout04.mail.aol.com> "Naturally evolves along lines described by M. Montessori"????????????? Play the music from the Twilight Zone. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:41:04 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <9611280041.AA08293@toto.csustan.edu> JHE >> You may copyright email that is your own intellectual >>property, but unless you are "K.H." or his literary heir, you >>may not copyright his letter. PA > Quite right, however letters that are reproduced in email >or magazines are protected by the copyright thereof. In other >words a person can't then reproduce the letter unless they find >it from some other source. As a general rule when I quote >extensively from the M's writings I attach a copyright notice. JHE No. A letter reproduced in email may be protected by copyright or it may be in public domain. It is your responsibility to determine which. If it is protected by copyright, it is your responsibility to find the owner of that copyright. Whether the letter is protected by copyright or in public domain, you have no right to post a notice of copyright upon it. You have the following obligations: 1. If you want to reproduce a letter, and have any question as to whether or not it is protected by copyright, it is your responsibility to find out. If it is protected, you must: A. Get written permission from the owner of the copyright to reproduce it. B. Give notice that the letter is copyrighted; state who owns the copyright, and state that you are reproducing it with permission. 2. If the item is under public domain, you still have an obligation to cite where you got the letter, but you have no right to post a notice of copyright of any kind. PA >>>If someone wants to use the letter for any reason other than >>>non-profit goodwill then they can find it from some other >>>source. The assumption of the presumption is presumptious. JHE >> I respect your intent, but you may not claim ownership to >> something that does not belong to you. Sorry. PA >It is not ownership but source copyright as described above. JHE Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. By "source copyright," do you mean that you are giving notice that you are not sure whether the letter was copyrighted, therefore you are reproducing it without permission; but if the letter was copyrighted after all, you are hereby giving notice that it might be protected by copyright; but you are illegally reproducing the letter anyway, because your motives are honorable? PA >>>K.H. is still alive (physically present on our globe) I >>>believe (perhaps using a different mayavirupa). JHE > In that case, it is up to "K.H." to claim the copyright. PA >>Interestingly I originally found the text of the letter in a >>public forum on compuserve. After downloading it and reading >>it I went back to the forum in order to find who posted it and >>inquire as to the copyright. Peculiarly I could not find the >>posting in a search and so had no one to assign a source >>copyright to. Thus, not knowing that it was found in any other >>place I attached a "goodwill non-profit" clause to it whenever >>I posted it. JHE In this case, you had no business reproducing the letter until you determined its legal status. You also had no business attaching a "goodwill non-profit" notice to something that does not belong to you. Just, think, if yoy had followed procedures, you might have received written permission from KH to reproduce the letter, thereby you would have had you own personal Mahatma letter :-) For future reference, see my earlier post concerning the source of this letter. I hope this clarifies the issues. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:42:27 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Historical Info. Message-ID: <9611280042.AA06021@toto.csustan.edu> >In the recent issue of The Krotonian, there is a short summary >of the history behind Krotona. > >There was a time when both Krotona Institute and the National >Headquarters of TSA were in Hollywood in one place. In 1924, the >property was sold and an equitable division of assets were >agreed upon between ES and TSA. Later Wheton property was >purchased and Olcott was established an National HQ of TSA. > >Would any historian throw some light on the background info to >the above. Could it be that the national HQ may have been >located Ojai instead of Wheaton? Why of all locations Wheaton >was preferred and purchased? > >MKR JHE Until about 1924 the American ES and Headquarters of the American Section were housed in the Hollywood hills on Vista del Mar--Just off of Beachwood Drive, below the famous "Hollywood" sign. The headquarters was called "Krotona," the same name as the present community in Ojai. There was a very nasty rift (i.e. another one of those good ol' theosophical power struggles) between the T.S. and E.S. Since the two factions were unable to come to terms, they agreed to sell the property in Hollywood and divide the assets. Through A.P. Warrington, the E.S. used their money to buy the property in Ojai and re-established their E.S. community in 1926. The story I was told concerning the selection of the Wheaton site was that Annie Besant chose the site because it had an exceptional aura (whatever that is supposed to mean). The National headquarters were never in Ojai. They were in New York under Judge. Under Weller van Hook (or perhaps Fullerton--I don't recall at the moment), they moved to Chicago. Around 1912 headquarters were constructed in Hollywood and the headquarters were moved there. In 1924, they temporarily moved back to Chicago, then to Wheaton in 1926 upon completion of the present building. Many of the buildings from the Krotona Hollywood days are still standing. The Headquarters building is now (last time I checked) an apartment building. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:18:13 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Perfected? Message-ID: In message <329C288A.356A@earthlink.net>, "Patrick Alessandra Jr." writes > By definition a Master or Mahatma is perfected in relation to the >human experience. When the basic rules of discipleship (as illustrated >in the book "The Voice of the Silence" for example) are followed the >evidence follows also. I challenege your definition and ask you to support it, and not with more "proof by assertion." Maha = great; Atma = spirit. Mahatma = great spirit. That doesn't mean perfection, although it does suggest greater "advancement." What are "the basic rules of discipleship?" Why should we need to be "disciples" of anyone in the first place? A disciple is someone who folows a discipline. Self-discipline can also serve us well. Christian disciples follow Christina teachings, Buddhist disciples Buddhist teaching, Hindu disciples hindu teaching, etc., etc. So what is so special about the VOS? AB --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:04:01 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Sodom Message-ID: In message <329BA33B.7779@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >> I forgot why this mattered to anyone :-) > > I dislike it when someone puts down a religion or a religious book and >blithely assumes that all agree with him, and therefore needs no >evidence. Yes, of course, and I agree with you. Thanks for the reminder. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:30:59 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Yes! Message-ID: In message <961127115536_1717314205@emout10.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >while I agree that ~brotherhood~ may be losing the inclusive meaning >it once had, it is interesting to keep hearing that some people think that a >male-dominance conspiracy was responsible for it in the first place. Hardly a conspiracy; history will show, IMO, that a conspiracy wasn't necessary. The males had dominance because they were strong enough to simply *take* it both in pphysical and social circumstances. It is the change in the latter that has contributed largely to the change in language emphasis. > That >HPB, in particular, did not kick up a fuss about it makes me doubt this. Who >knows? It was the convention of the time and *its* language that the male included the female as a katter of course. This is no longer the case, and women have increasingly, and properly, sought recognition as themselves in their own gender classification, and not as a secondary attribute of maleness. > HPB may have even regarded the female-included usage as an ongoing >healthy reminder to the males of her day that they ~couldn't~ expropriate for >themselves a universal term like ~brotherhood~. A nice thought, and maybe she had it - who knows. Unfortunately, all too many males *did and still do* expropriate the term for themselves, if not overtly (as in Grand Lodge Freemasonry) then covertly, by avoiding the recognition of "the little woman" as an equal partner, and similar psychological devices. I hope the women on the list will chip in their 2 cents' worth on this one - I am not so well qualified. :-) Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:27:48 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <199611280227.TAA09888@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: >Then something else started bothering me: Given that it is so obvious that >~brotherhood~ is a "male-associated" word once it is pointed out, why was it >possible that it could have included females for so long without most people >giving it much of a second thought? Were the people of past generations >stupid or what? No, they were products of their time. Double Duh!!! And, more often than not, it wasn't meant to include females. . .what's this "for so long" junk? >In other words "female writers" could be those who are still >tainted by the desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal >package" and "male writers" from another. What? >HPB may have even regarded the female-included usage as an ongoing >healthy reminder to the males of her day that they ~couldn't~ expropriate for >themselves a universal term like ~brotherhood~. Wow! I admire your attempt at "anxiety-reducing rationalization." That's some whopper conclusion - quite creative really. >I don't know how it looks to you, but I see lots and lots of older women who >naturally seem to add the famous "male problem-solving" mode and older men who also >become quite comfortable in so-called "female pattern-following." Grandma or >Grandpa--what's the big difference after a certain point? Ask Grandma and Grandpa. And you know, golly gee, Richard - some of us young ones (girlie ones) have managed to already "add" the "famous male problem-solving mode." No, wait! let me wrestle with my homones here and get clarity of mind - I think, yes, I do indeed think that lots and lots of women, could it be all women?, are just plain BORN with that "famous male problem-solving mode?" >I sort of think HPB would have been offended by the demotion of her psyche >to the level of either sex. No, I think "Madame" would be offended that you are using her as an icon to justify the continued use of archaic and insulting verbiage. I can picture her actually laying upon your head a mighty thump. >(Okay, I'm lying. . . .) You're doing far more than that. There seems to be some of us who insist on burying our heads in the sand so as not to see the progression of the world and the inhabitants of it. Well, that's fine and great, but you know, those of you who choose to do this must understand what one looks like when one's head is buried in the sand. . ."butts are us." In the theosophical spirit, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 01:07:35 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <961128010734_1784533260@emout19.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle--> >Then something else started bothering me: Given that it is so obvious that >~brotherhood~ is a "male-associated" word once it is pointed out, why was it >possible that it could have included females for so long without most people >giving it much of a second thought? Were the people of past generations >stupid or what? Kym--> No, they were products of their time. Double Duh!!! R.I.--> Well, yes, of course. (Triple Duh!!!!! and/or perpetual plus one. . . .) However, what I was trying to explore a little is the possibility that there may be something a little more theosophical ("psychogenetic') under the surface with these peculiar language developments. Forget the people of the past; I still find it intriguing that ~I~ was able to think of terms like ~brotherhood~ and ~mankind~ for so many decades ("for-so-long junk") and never doubt for a second that they also included women. Was I stupid or something, Kym? [The crowd murmurs in disbelief as Tyson's opponent drops his guard.] R.I.--> >In other words "female writers" could be those who are still >tainted by the desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal >package" and "male writers" from another. Kym--> What? R.I.--> In other words "female writers" could be those who are still tainted by the desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal package" and "male writers" from another. R.I.--> >HPB may have even regarded the female-included usage as an ongoing >healthy reminder to the males of her day that they ~couldn't~ expropriate for >themselves a universal term like ~brotherhood~. Kym--> Wow! I admire your attempt at "anxiety-reducing rationalization." That's some whopper conclusion - quite creative really. R.I.--> You're probably right: I had some anxieties about the fact that HPB might have been as stupid about the ~brotherhood~/~mankind~ language problem as I was. However, since I said ~may~, it can at the most only be a whopper ~possibility~, not a "conclusion." R.I.--> >I don't know how it looks to you, but I see lots and lots of older women who naturally >seem to add the famous "male problem-solving mode" and older men who also become >quite comfortable in so-called "female pattern-following." Grandma or Grandpa--what's the >big difference after a certain point? Kym--> Ask Grandma and Grandpa. And you know, golly gee, Richard - some of us young ones (girlie ones) have managed to already "add" the "famous male problem-solving mode." No, wait! let me wrestle with my homones here and get clarity of mind - I think, yes, I do indeed think that lots and lots of women, could it be all women?, are just plain BORN with that "famous male problem-solving mode?" R.I.--> A little punctuation lesson from the RANDOM HOUSE HANDBOOK for you, Kym: "It may be necessary now and then to put a word within quotation marks to show that you don't share a certain attitude [p.293]." Thus, ~my~ quotation marks around "male problem-solving." (I even put ~so-called~ in front of "female pattern-following" to further alert readers.) Anyway, I can assure you that I did not invent these fairly common psychological descriptors from the past, nor do I find them even remotely as compelling as the gender-related brain hemisphere differences I already said I was very suspicious of. My point was that even with any such presumed differences, it is my personal observation that the sexes seem to grow more alike as they age, from wherever they may have started (my mother and father, for example, even having sort of reversed their roles in many respects somewhere along the line). Golly gee, Kym, you don't have to prove to me that you were BORN with every famous and wonderful quality. . . . R.I.--> >I sort of think HPB would have been offended by the demotion of her psyche >to the level of either sex. Kym--> No, I think "Madame" would be offended that you are using her as an icon to justify the continued use of archaic and insulting verbiage. I can picture her actually laying upon your head a mighty thump. R.I.--> No, I have to disagree with you here, Kym. I have always thought that HPB would have liked me a lot. For one thing, we both probably belong to that ever-shrinking "Brotherhood" (remember the lesson on quotation marks) which seems to refuse to look at the the world either tunnelled-visioned down through the urethra or with the mere, winking glance of the vagina. . . . Actually, I can picture HPB dressing my head wounds with great solicitude and affection after I have had one too many "genteel" discussions with ~you~, Kym. Kym--> In the theosophical spirit, Kym R.I.--> In the theos-l spirit, Richard From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Nov 28 03:44:44 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Welcome back! Message-ID: <199611280844.DAA10947@envirolink.org> See title. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:12:14 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Sex in evolution Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961128111214.0069b058@xs4all.nl> Anthropologists have it that sex is possibly the source of the most primitive experiences of love and transcendence. As far as I know, it is in no other species indulged in as much as in human beings. Possibly it is the cause of the unique awakening of transcendental experience of love. I suppose that giving love is an act that psychosomatically corresponds as much with the genital-consciousnessness(sacral chakra) as that of the heart. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:37:53 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Quest Bookshop O.K. Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961128113753.00698b28@xs4all.nl> I seem to have been too hasty with my query about execution of orders with Quest Bookshop. Just now the books were delivered at my doorstep - speedier than I had expected. A return E-mail confirmation does not seem to be part of their practice. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:14:20 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 739 Message-ID: <199611281337.IAA11524@cliff.cris.com> > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:52:41 -0500 > From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." > > issues - including sterlization, family > > planning, birth control? > > The difficulties implicit in these issues are a result of the > overstimulation of the emotional interests (mostly glamours) in sex, > rather than the physical need itself. This statement leads me to think that you are saying that if humanity were less emotionally focussed on sex, they would have be less interested in that activity, other than for procreative purpose. The sublimation of the sex drive by creative work or the conscious moving of the energies up the spine, rather than letting them fall to the bottom, also addresses this issue. But when will the majority of humanity be ready and able to do this? When 90% of the population has taken the first initiation, worked through their glamours on the astral and are quickly moving towards the second initiation? What is the realistic time frame here? ARe we talking 2050? 2401? Now we're into Star Trek country. :-) My impression is that you are speaking of a future time rather than the here and now of 1996. > > When there is the above mentioned economic freedom then the > educational process naturally evolves along lines described by M. > Montessori in local communities. > Again, I believe you speak of a time in the future. Has any of your economic theories been tested in a live, group situation? I would like to hear some practical applications of your theories. How do they really function in the human community? -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 10:15:33 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Offerings Message-ID: <329DBAA5.2F51@eden.com> Murray Stentiford wrote: > write anything on this list anyway. Maybe it's a confidence thing, too. I > remember feeling pretty tentative about writing when I first joined theos-l. > It felt a bit like trying to break into a circle of cognoscenti for whom I > had little that could be of interest. However, after a while, I began to > figure what notes I could usefully sing to add to the chords of the group. Let me share my experience in maillists. Years ago I used to be very active in discussions in local Bulletin Boards. So I had my initial training in messaging with a small group, most of whom I had known. One of the things I learnt is to keep the focus on topics and subjects and issues and not get personal. It is easier to deal with these things than when you get personal. In the days of BBS, I have seen situations where discussions became very personal attacks and the posters were banned from the BBS. The second thing I noticed is that sometimes you write something that you may have to retract or apologize for. One has to be open about acknowledging any errors and not hesitant about apologizing. When I found out about theos-xxxx, one of the first things I did was to find out "who is paying the piper" because if it is an organization, then the payer is going to call the songs. I was very happy to find out that none of the TS organizations had control over theos-xxxx and that is *the* strength. Any organization soon gets enmeshed in protecting its territory and secrecy relating to especially money issues. So here I am signed on to the t*-xxx lists. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:32:07 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <961128113207_1151715103@emout18.mail.aol.com> John, Thanks. I was on the verge of donating my copy of the Mahatma Letters to a homeless shelter. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:33:14 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Failing tests of Scorpio Message-ID: <961128113312_1319404961@emout05.mail.aol.com> John, My girlfriend is a Scorpio. Tell me about it! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:33:26 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: <961128113324_1817285793@emout09.mail.aol.com> Rich, For the sake of the bandwidth, please don't get that started again. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:33:35 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: happy thanksgiving Message-ID: <961128113334_605736482@emout12.mail.aol.com> To all my friends on the list, those I know and those I have not met, a very happy Thanksgiving and may you all enjoy the blessings of an overfull tummy, a warm house and a respite before the Xmas carols play continuously in the supermarket. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:01:12 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: hope after all Message-ID: <961128120110_1850842036@emout16.mail.aol.com> I'll be honest. I enjoy being a cynic. It's fun and I love making people sputter with frustration as I stick needles into their balloons. But every once in a while something happens that even gets to me. Right now I'm trading psionic material with someone in Kyrgyzistan (part of the old Soviet Union) which is interesting considering that fifteen years ago I would probably have been using the same material to try to kill him and him me. Hell, maybe there is some hope for humanity after all. Happy Thanksgiving. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:34:10 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex (resolved) Message-ID: <329DCD12.33A4@sprynet.com> Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > Nyet. > The only purpose of sex is to bring children into the world. What is a purpose? Asking for your definition, not rhetorically. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:46:38 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Quest Bookstore Message-ID: <329DCFFE.25FF@sprynet.com> Michael wrote: > > I was recommended in this group to order books of K.Paul Johnson, and Peter > Washington from Quest Bookstore. I preferred a Theosophical enterprise and > choose them. I don't know if you will find Peter Washington's book at a Quest Bookshop, as it contains a number of false to the pont of libelous (if the principles were still living) statements (unlike Mr. Johnson's book, where the statements of fact are, to the best of Mr. Johnson's knowledge, true). You must realize that if you wrote to the Quest Bookshop in Seattle, they have a very professional looking web page not because they are Internet savvy, but because one of the owners of their Internet Service Provider is a member of the Theosophical lodge in Seattle. Give them time. I would recommend the Quest Bookshop in New York, but their minimum for international mail orders is either $50 or $100 (my wife isn't handy at the moment, and I forget which one). If you wrote to Wheaton, I can't explain the problem, although they are looking into putting in a mail server right now. If you wrote to New York, I did not receive either of the pieces of email. John Sellon is apparently interested in putting genuine order by Internet into the NYTS Internet site, but there are a LOT of details (not to mention programming) to work out. In the meantime, it is a bad idea to send a credit card number by EMAIL. I will be setting up a PGP key for the NYTS in the next couple of months, but until then, email is inherently insecure. Bart Lidofsky Systems Administrator New York Theosophical Society (nyts@dosai.org). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:53:12 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Krotona/Wheaton - Historical Info. Message-ID: <329DD188.788@sprynet.com> m.k. ramadoss wrote: > Would any historian throw some light on the background info to the above. > Could it be that the national HQ may have been located Ojai instead of > Wheaton? Why of all locations Wheaton was preferred and purchased? Elizabeth Trumpler will probably give the real answer, but from what I recall I was told, it was the simplest reason of all: The TS was given the land. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 14:28:41 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sodom Message-ID: <199611281938.OAA25981@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >I don't think God knows what He's doing or what He really wants here - He's >just got bigger lightening bolts than the rest of us. . .which may show size >does matter. > >Kym > >Beg to differ Kym. I believe God, or whatever, knows what It is doing, but the people who wrote the story of Sodom & Gomorra, such as you present it, were a bit zerschimmelt. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 14:32:04 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: perfected Message-ID: <199611281941.OAA26156@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our >> >true needs perfectly. >> Then what's the difference between the Mahatmas and the Pope? I don't see any, as depicted here. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:40:13 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > John, > Thanks. I was on the verge of donating my copy of the Mahatma Letters to a > homeless shelter. Actually, at some high and strange metaphorical level - the ML *are* a homeless shelter. With superficial depth, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:04:42 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Krotona/Wheaton - Historical Info. Message-ID: <329DFE6A.22C7@eden.com> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > Would any historian throw some light on the background info to the above. > > Could it be that the national HQ may have been located Ojai instead of > > Wheaton? Why of all locations Wheaton was preferred and purchased? > > Elizabeth Trumpler will probably give the real answer, but from what I > recall I was told, it was the simplest reason of all: The TS was given > the land. > > Bart Lidofsky Thanks for the info. Already Jerry has responded with some details. Thanks, MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 14:40:57 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <199611282140.OAA23467@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: > Forget the people of the past; I still find it intriguing that ~I~ was able to think of terms like brotherhood~ and ~mankind~ for so many decades ("for-so-long junk") and never doubt for a second that they also included women. How is it possible that I, for not so many decades, have never thought the term "brotherhood" genuinely meant to include women? - it suggests to me a very reluctant and resistant welcoming. >Was I stupid or something, Kym? [The crowd murmurs in disbelief as Tyson's opponent drops >his guard.] Oh, MAN, why do you tempt me with this? :-) [by the way, I prefer Sugar Ray, we all know what Tyson thinks about women :-( ] >R.I.--> >In other words "female writers" could be those who are still tainted by the >desire/emotional nature arising from one type of "hormonal package" and "male >writers" from another. Why do you tempt me with this, too? >You're probably right: I had some anxieties about the fact that HPB might >have been as stupid about the ~brotherhood~/~mankind~ language problem as I >was. However, since I said ~may~, it can at the most only be a whopper >~possibility~, not a "conclusion." HPB has more of an excuse to have been "stupid" here anyway (with women just beginning to be heard in her time), you, on the other hand, have more knowledge and understanding of social progression in this area (language). Why must we insist that HPB know everything, answer everything, before we move ahead? >R.I.--> >A little punctuation lesson from the RANDOM HOUSE HANDBOOK for you, Kym: "It >may be necessary now and then to put a word within quotation marks to show >that you don't share a certain attitude [p.293]." Thus, ~my~ quotation marks >around "male problem-solving." (I even put ~so-called~ in front of "female >pattern-following" to further alert readers.) I did not glean from your post that you did not share the "attitude." >My point was that even with any such presumed differences, it is my personal >observation that the sexes seem to grow more alike as they age, from wherever >they may have started (my mother and father, for example, even having sort of >reversed their roles in many respects somewhere along the line). Golly gee, >Kym, you don't have to prove to me that you were BORN with every famous and >wonderful quality. . . . Perhaps you noticed I said "all women," and not "Kym," which is what this is all about. I see the sexes shedding their restrictive "gender" roles while they are young today. It is not true that people develop these "famous and wonderful qualities," but that they simply SET THEM FREE. Past generations had this luxury only when they reached late adulthood. So no, I don't agree it (qualities) has anything to do with age. (do I smell ageism, albeit reversed?) >R.I.--> >No, I have to disagree with you here, Kym. I have always thought that HPB >would have liked me a lot. For one thing, we both probably belong to that >ever-shrinking "Brotherhood" (remember the lesson on quotation marks) which >seems to refuse to look at the the world either tunnelled-visioned down >through the urethra or with the mere, winking glance of the vagina. . . . Don't get me started on the body parts. For the gadzillionth time, this isn't a woman thing, it's an equality thing, a respect thing, a humanity thing. And you know, when it is recognized as such, the word "brotherhood" will be gone and replaced with something that truly emcompasses all of humanity. When something is perceived as a "woman thing" it's much easier to ignore - which is why it's often used as a delay tactic. >Actually, I can picture HPB dressing my head wounds with great solicitude and >affection after I have had one too many "genteel" discussions with ~you~, >Kym. This girl sees blatant smackings of sexism (maybe worse) in your post. And it pushed this girl's buttons, big time. And I am sure the more refined women on this list would have dealt with you much more kindly and diplomatically. Your post was not "genteel." My post was not "genteel." The term brotherhood is not "genteel." I'll dress my own wounds, thank you. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Nov 96 17:05:58 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: re: Memes and molecular machines Message-ID: <961128220557_74024.3352_BHT179-4@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by BC Crandall >While I >think its great to investigate the relationship between the material world >and the inner world of our consciousness and even our emotional states, I >feel we need to have a much stronger hold on faith and the spiritual reality >before we can make any real breakthroughs i< Keith; I would like to breifly respond to the very important insight that emotion or attitude has everything to do with getting results rather than information (detached rational "scientific" attitude: We are told in various religious sources to approach the Holy Spirit with: 1. awe 2. "fear" intense emotion combined with respect for one's Parent or superiour 3. struggle - Israel means he who stuggle with God 4. love and receptivity 5. humility - I am an imperfect vessel unworhty of the infilling enery and warmth of my one true source - yet I ask for grace and blessing to do YOUR will Heavenly Spirit Keith (not JOseph) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Nov 96 17:16:41 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Memes - Myths or Miracles? Message-ID: <961128221640_74024.3352_BHT179-5@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by BC Crandall >now, with the advent of new technologies, "our" stories, these memes, *can*, for the first time, really change the matter of the world. In this new context, we must examine and refine the memes that generate our consciousness (our stories of what "we" are and what "the world" is), weeding out old certainties that are potentially dangerous in our new condition. Assuming (for what ever reasons) "a creator," posits an external locus of control/responsibility. This sends us scurrying to determine "the correct" response, that is, what is desired *of* us, rather than working -- as do all successful biological systems -- from always local intelligence. It is the coordinated (through communication) actions of the many trillion "individual" cells of our bodies seeking their local well being that leads to "our" moment to moment survival and happiness. Not some effort by each cell to satisfy an external order. (All this is familiar to those versed in emergent behavior of chaotic systems; for a wonderful introduction, with examples drawn from many fields, see Kevin Kelly's _Out Of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization_, Addison Wesley, 1994.) >>For "me," the fundamental "reality" >>has become that of memes precipitating subjectivity. > > Aren't those memes also the PRODUCT of our collective subjective >activity in history, not just a "precipitation" in each individual >subjective "self"? Absolutely. Stored memes are history. Experienced memes generate our sense of what we are as humans. The rise of external storage devices (writing) marked an inconceivable (for "us") advance in memetic, that is human, culture. >>What does one do when it becomes abundantly clear >>that it is -- now -- the end of the world as we know it? Not as some >>sort of religiously ordained apocalypse, but rather as the "natural" >>working out of a particular "strange attractor" (to use the language >>of chaoticians), that of mathematics-based technoscience, which >>is the dominant memetic force in the world today. > > Wasn't it "the end of the world" at EVERY moment in history? Again, yes. But today, the end is being worked out at the molecular level (the level of technology now). Thus the two possible "ends" we now face are extinction (as "stupid" molecular machines reorganize the matter of the world beyond our bodies capacity to live) and space migration. We will determine, through our physical actions, which is our fate. >I think some other, quite ancient, fundamental >meme is more important as it "shows" us THE end (also in the meaning of: >eventual purpose) of our journey and also should be our lead at this very >moment. We're on our way to organize all creation (including all our mental >potential and memes) in such a way that the Creator be praised with all our >might, "songs" and "dances" (including science). See above discussion on the untenable and increasingly dangerous assumptions regarding a creator and a preordained end. Flexibility is the mark of life; rigidity death. > Thank you! Things are much clearer to me now (at least in my own >opinion, I hope I didn't add to confusion with my comments, is so please >correct me) Memetic exchange continues as longas we live (as humans). May we all live long and prosper. Keith: I know the concept of memes is more complex but don't they have a lot in common with: 1. prayers 2. thought forms (in the Annie Beasant- CWLeadbeater thesophical tradition 3. propoganda (in the political and machiavellian tradition) 4. hypotheses in the scientific traditon 5.myths in the primitive culture vs. us tradition 6. glamour in the fashion tradtion 7. illusion in the magic tradtion Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:00:37 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Sodom thing Message-ID: <199611282300.QAA24271@snowden.micron.net> Liesel wrote: >>Beg to differ Kym. I believe God, or whatever, knows what It is doing, but >the people who wrote the story of Sodom & Gomorra, such as you present it, >were a bit zerschimmelt. Agreed on both points - I think, since I'm guessing what zerschimmelt means! :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 19:11:05 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <961128191105_1218799366@emout15.mail.aol.com> Kym writes--> How is it possible that I, for not so many decades, have never thought the term "brotherhood" genuinely meant to include women? - it suggests to me a very reluctant and resistant welcoming. Richard Ihle writes--> I don't know the answer to this. Most of the women of my acquaintance seem to think either 1) ~brotherhood~ and ~mankind~ started off as inclusive terms and still are inclusive terms, or 2) they once were inclusive but no longer are. As to your third point of view, I suppose it boils down to what you think the millions of men and women who previously used the terms had in mind when they used them--i.e., you may think the majority just meant men, while I think the majority meant men and women. Kym--> HPB has more of an excuse to have been "stupid" here anyway (with women just beginning to be heard in her time), you, on the other hand, have more knowledge and understanding of social progression in this area (language). Why must we insist that HPB know everything, answer everything, before we move ahead? R.I.--> I often read theos-l too quickly and miss important things. Two things you may have missed are the following: 1) as soon as I was educated to the fact that a growing number of people no longer see the terms as inclusive, I changed--i.e., I generally either avoided the terms or used substitutes; and 2) the ~only~ instance where I still don't favor tampering with ~brotherhood~ is in THE THREE OBJECTS, and the reason I gave for this is that I fear it would compromise the general illusion that it is an inviolable document--i.e., that even a change for a worthy purpose like gender-neutrality would give the signal to the powers within the the TS that THE THREE OBJECTS should thus also be able to be easily changed to include statements about service to the "Masters," HPB doctrine etc. Kym--> It is not true that people develop these "famous and wonderful qualities," but that they simply SET THEM FREE. Past generations had this luxury only when they reached late adulthood. So no, I don't agree it (qualities) has anything to do with age. (do I smell ageism, albeit reversed?) R.I.--> Since I openly admit to not knowing much about gender differences, I am probably not the person to argue with about them. You say they don't exist; other people say they do (for example, TIME MAGAZINE a year or two ago had a cover feature on the difference between the way men and women are "hard-wired"). My interest in this is theosophical. The point I was bringing up for discussion is that perhaps ~even if~ there are such differences, a shift from utilizing predominently desire-mental (kama-manas) consciousness and toward more mental (manas) consciousness would make any putative gender differences largely irrelevant, anyway. The women authors I mentioned seemed like good possible examples for this. I not sure I know exactly what you mean by "reversed ageism," but if it suggests that I might believe there is a natural lessening of desire-mental consciousness (because of learned lessons etc.) as we age, I confess that I do believe that. Kym--> This girl sees blatant smackings of sexism (maybe worse) in your post. And it pushed this girl's buttons, big time. And I am sure the more refined women on this list would have dealt with you much more kindly and diplomatically. R.I.--> If less "refinement" is simply the reason you can so easily charge me with "worse than sexism," I can breathe a sigh of relief. I am ashamed to admit that for a while was entertaining all kinds of silly ideas about the reasons for your "verve." Once, I even thought you might be a sort-of-a-prince who was returning to the list again in drag. . . . Sorry, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:43:05 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: <8jipbJAZGjnyEw85@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961128113324_1817285793@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Rich, >For the sake of the bandwidth, please don't get that started again. > >Chuck the Heretic Dearly beloved Chuck, Your message headers take up more bandwidth than your messages. Ever think about that? Huh? Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:56:50 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: In message <961128191105_1218799366@emout15.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >2) the ~only~ instance where I still don't favor tampering with ~brotherhood~ >is in THE THREE OBJECTS, and the reason I gave for this is that I fear it >would compromise the general illusion that it is an inviolable >document--i.e., that even a change for a worthy purpose like >gender-neutrality would give the signal to the powers within the the TS that >THE THREE OBJECTS should thus also be able to be easily changed to include >statements about service to the "Masters," HPB doctrine etc. Dear Richard, You *could* subscribe to the TI statement of intent without thereby abandoning your integrity to the spirit of the three objects as currently formulated. The Societies are not likely to change them anyway- even though they do *not* constitute an inviolable document. So far as TS (Adyar) is concerned the objects as written need to remain as stated if for no other reason than that they are part of the Articles of Incorporation ("TS Rules Adyar" on web page - in HISTORY directory I think) and form part of the legal structure of that body. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:03:47 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Bros h'd Message-ID: <199611290213.VAA17469@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > Was I stupid or >something, Kym? [The crowd murmurs in disbelief as Tyson's opponent drops >his guard.] > >R.I.--> No, Richard, you were jsut being a product of acculturation. We all used to think that way. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:14:47 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <961129011446_1553624473@emout17.mail.aol.com> John, that may be true. I've often said the Theosophical Society was the only one that would let me in. And they regret it on occasion! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:19:59 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <961129011958_772758178@emout02.mail.aol.com> Rich, I don't think you-know-who ever did drag. From all the times we've talked he thinks it's very funny. Chuck the Hetero-heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:21:39 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: <961129012138_1453592100@emout18.mail.aol.com> Alan, It was figure of speech. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:47:43 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: > > Alan, > It was figure of speech. > > Chuck the Heretic > Chuck: Is that a male or female figure? Gertrude the Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:51:59 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: I meant to get this in earlier, but the mailer kept telling me that I wasn't subscribed to THEOS-L. Anyhow....forget procreation, forget any mystic symbolism.... Don't people engage in sex because they ENJOY it?? I can send condoms to those who don't wish to procreate! Gertrude the Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:12:59 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: Or is TS a male homosexual organization...since it espouses "brotherhood"? Gertrude, the open-minded, Churchmouse From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:25:37 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Welcome Message-ID: Theosophy International welcomes Thomas Robertson! Thomas is on mdmgyn@postoffice.worldnet.att.net and is a member of the Theosophical Society. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 08:26:52 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961130143908.1de7301e@iprolink.co.nz> Responding to Patrick >> Patrick, I would be most interested to know whether there are other >> writings from spiritual teachers you consider to be of the Mahatma >> class, that have more to say on this subject and, if so, what those >> writings are. > > To restate, whenever a Mahatma writes about the purpose of sex it >is clear that the purpose is to bring children into the world. (Is >there a counter example?) Uh? Or maybe Duh? You don't seem to have responded to what you quoted. This was an invitation to give us some really interesting material and you leave me wondering why you have declined in this way. But I note that you have modified your earlier >The only purpose of sex is to bring children into the world. to the slightly less uncompromising form above. This shift, plus your (to somebody else) >The purpose (in a spiritual sense) of sex is indeed to create life >on the physical plane, but also other helpful processes do occur. give me a small sense that some kind of dialog is actually happening. You ask for a counter example, but to what, exactly? If you're challenging us to come up with a case where a Mahatma is on record as saying that sex has nothing to do with bringing children into the world, then your'e obviously safe - there will never be one. But that doesn't support your case; it is only an absence of contradiction, and a trivial one. There is no doubt that a true Mahatma - "great soul" literally - would always have the production of children in mind when considering sex, simply as a consequence of a holistic and penetrating viewpoint. I see no argument here, but you have been asking us to accept that a Mahatma would state that producing children is the *only* purpose of sex, with hardly any attempt to clarify what you mean by "purpose", let alone acknowledge the multi-dimensionality of sex which is clear enough to us humans let alone any being more evolved than us. By repeating the formula "The (only) purpose of sex is to have children", you have ignored the glaringly obvious resonance with medieval thinking, that sex is sinful when having children is not the immediate intention, leaving us to conclude that you somehow subscribe to it (perhaps subconsciously), and wonder what your attitude is to the psychological havoc this has wrought over the centuries. There are many interesting directions this discussion could take and I would like to follow up just one of them, now. Purpose, if we take it to mean an intended outcome, begs the question of where that purpose resides. This IMO is one of the reasons scientists shy away from the word. Science has been dominated by a flight from medieval modes of thinking like "So-and-so was created by God so as to "such-and-such" but, with its present knowledge, has virtually no way to conceive of a way that purpose could be held outside of the human brain and mind. This is where theosophy (broad, timeless, sense) can suggest meaningful possibilities, eg subtler planes of nature where creative ideation can exist, and various means by which it could affect matter such as the deva or angelic kingdom, or other spiritual intelligences. A scary prospect this might seem to many scientists, but what if we began by proposing, let's say, Centres of Distributed Non-corporeal Intelligence existing in a cosmos-wide mind space, or any other term that avoids the medieval connotations? The right way to do this, of course, is to think of the acronym first, then work backwards! A project for TI-L, methinks :-) . Seeing science has had a while to accept the relatedness of consciousness and matter at the quantum level, this might not be such a big jump, and could open up quite a number of possibilities. I mean, think of some of the Star Trek Next Generation stories, and consider how science fiction has more than once anticipated discovery. All of which still leaves us with many imponderables as to what purpose is and how it could work out in the emergence of living forms. And, if we're honest, a realisation that it is hardly up to us to tell Nature what purposes are excluded from its processes, if purpose is the word to use at all. So, if we must use the word, how about Sex has more purposes than producing children. Maybe it's better to forsake potted statements and try to embrace more of the dimensions of sex, for instance Sex is a multi-faceted means of creativity and expression that includes 1) bringing children into the world 2) a powerful stimulus to individual and global evolution 3) a potent way to build and enhance relationships 4) re-enacts the cosmic process of creative interaction of opposites 5) opportunities for mystical experience or cosmic consciousness 6) a way to have fun, and 7) plenty of opportunities to mess it up. And having drawn up a list, maybe it's better to forget about trying to capture this particular butterfly, and look around and enjoy. I believe the last thing we need, if the potential of generalised theosophy to be helpful is to be realised, is any kind of dogmatic statement, as some of yours have certainly appeared to be. That will scare them away in droves. Our role, no matter how certain we may feel about these things, is to interface intelligently with people who are not familiar with these ideas, and demonstrate a true awareness of their position plus the humility to acknowledge that we truly know but little as yet. Then get creative about ways to convey our ideas. >> If your opinions are not based on written material so much, then what is >> their basis? > > Both writings and observations. Ah, now....! We may not know what writings you mean, but you have dropped us the hint of observations. Great, but whose? You can say more on this list than that without being crucified - a little bit more, anyway! >See > http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/seea.html I did. It was interesting to see some of your background, but there was still little on the sex/purpose question that I saw. Maybe I have to buy the $5 60-page book you mentioned there. In the meantime, could you please make it a practice to offer more visible support for the stratospherically serene statements you often make? This is a discussion list, after all. Finally, a genuine appreciation of your effort in publishing on the Web. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:28:09 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: <329F7189.3415@sprynet.com> CDGertrude wrote: > > Or is TS a male homosexual organization...since it espouses >"brotherhood"? I have never had sex with my male wombmate, but I call him my brother; why should the term "Brotherhood" imply homosexuality? I do not understand. Perhaps you are coming from an advanced mental plane of which I am too thick to comprehend. I hope so; I would not like to think that you are being inappropriately sarcastic to try and create an issue where none exists, and to create prejudice and hatred where none currently exist. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:51:13 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: <199611292351.QAA11058@snowden.micron.net> >Richard Ihle writes--> >Most of the women of my acquaintance seem to think either 1) ~brotherhood~ and ~mankind~ started off as inclusive terms and still are inclusive terms, Brotherhood did not "start off" as a inclusive term, a cursory look at history will prove such. >that even a change for a worthy purpose like gender-neutrality would give the >signal to the powers within the the TS that THE THREE OBJECTS should thus also be >able to be easily changed to include statements about service to the "Masters," HPB >doctrine etc. Wow, are the "powers" within the TS that sinister? I had occasionally suspected, but still had some hope. >My interest in this is theosophical. The point I was bringing up for >discussion is that perhaps ~even if~ there are such differences, a shift from >utilizing predominently desire-mental (kama-manas) consciousness and toward >more mental (manas) consciousness would make any putative gender differences >largely irrelevant, anyway. The writings and messages of "transmitters" or enlightened ones have often been used to justify wrongs and stand in the way of change. Implying that women (as you did in an earlier post) are predominently desire-mental (kama-manas)and men are predominately mental (manas) is the same as saying women are emotional/thinkers and men are rational/thinkers. In either language - it's sexism and discriminatory, and demeans both men and women. It has already been proven that gender-differences are "largely irrelevant anyway," - what I see being attempted here is to clothe and promote, and even re-animate, harmful ideas with the cloak of "divine wisdom" or "enlightenment." Some "interpreters" of esotericism have managed to insert a skanky side into the literature (ex: Aryan "superiority," Monad "laggards," etc.) With this and more, it is not surprising that a division of the sexes would find endorsement with some similiar juggling of esoteric wisdom. I guess we just see what we want to see and practice what we want to practice, and interpret the literature in the way that suits us most. "Know a person's god, and you will know them." >If less "refinement" is simply the reason you can so easily charge me with >"worse than sexism," I can breathe a sigh of relief. I am ashamed to admit >that for a while was entertaining all kinds of silly ideas about the reasons >for your "verve." Once, I even thought you might be a sort-of-a-prince who >was returning to the list again in drag. . . . 'Cuse me? Ok, some esoteric literature espouses homophobia as well. Yo! Richard: You claim to walk with Blavatsky, yeah, well sometimes, I think I walk with the big shots too. Tell ya what, if you find yourself at "The Door" and your great big key doesn't fit - over to your left you'll see a dark corner. Come on over, there'll be one or two who lack "refinement," and a "Cleric" or two, who's keys didn't fit either huddled there. We'll just sit around and yammer, and try to figure out. . .well. . .where all the transvestites have gone. Kym "If you see the Buddha, kill him." - Zen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 19:00:00 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Bros h'd Message-ID: <961129185959_1520146198@emout17.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle writes--> >Was I stupid or something, Kym? [about not seeing ~brotherhood~ as a male-associated word until it was pointed out to me] Liesel writes--> No, Richard, you were just being a product of acculturation. We all used to think that way. R.I.--> You are probably right about that, Liesel; however, you know that any theosophist worth his or her salt won't settle for an easy answer when there is a chance that there is a complicated and abstruse one somewhere. . . . In this case I am thinking about what HPB might call "the fundamental human soul"--the "I AM" (Atman, Purusa) using the mental (manas) "vehicle" (upadhi). Curiously, there is a certain paradox with this state of consciousness, because there seems to be little that we can regard as "familiarly human" about it--so untainted and neutral it appears. No likes, dislikes, social roles, gender identifications etc. deluding the psyche here. An mentally active place, but not always exciting. Desire-Mental consciousness is a different story altogether, isn't it? Here not only is the dispassionate mentality compromised by our attraction to or repulsion from the subject matter etc., but also all the ways we ~like~ to see ourselves--as Republicans, Afro-Americans, school teachers, men, and women etc.--comes into play. Here is where most people think the "real human action" takes place. Call a man who likes to be a man and who is currently utilizing a Desire-Mental type of consciousness a "woman," and you are likely to see sparks fly. Call the same man a woman when he is stabilized in Mental consciousness and, while you may see him expend quite a bit of energy trying to disprove the assertion, it is unlikely to become a personal matter of "offended masculinity." Psychogenetically speaking, he is neither man nor woman at this (Fifth) Level of consciousness, only a "rational psyche." So anyway, I think of a woman like HPB who apparently had no trouble "including herself in" when ~brotherhood~ was used, and again I have to ask, "Was she stupid or something not to see and react against the obvious male association?" The answer I am on the verge of coming up with is "no." I don't think it is probable that her consciousness was any "lower" than the modern feminists. Indeed, I almost am persuaded of the reverse: i.e., that HPB might have had to significantly ~descend~ in terms of regularly utilized consciousness in order to so solidly start thinking of herself as a woman that she would be greatly interested by such an issue. Liesel, I don't know . . . maybe I just want to get HPB off the stupidity-hook so I can get off it myself. For sure I'm acculturated enough not to want Germaine Greer to be in proud possession of an ~authentically~ sooner-raised consciousness than mine. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 19:34:52 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <961129193452_1084768775@emout05.mail.aol.com> Alan Bain writes--> << Dear Richard, You *could* subscribe to the TI statement of intent without thereby abandoning your integrity to the spirit of the three objects as currently formulated. The Societies are not likely to change them anyway- even though they do *not* constitute an inviolable document. So far as TS (Adyar) is concerned the objects as written need to remain as stated if for no other reason than that they are part of the Articles of Incorporation ("TS Rules Adyar" on web page - in HISTORY directory I think) and form part of the legal structure of that body. Alan >> Richard Ihle writes--> Alan, jump in on my side against Kym and I'll join. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:50:14 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: In message <199611292351.QAA11058@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net quotes: >"If you see the Buddha, kill him." - Zen What does Zen say about Mahatmas? Alan [slaps wrist for *naughty* thought] --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:31:01 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <541YtAAFB4nyEwtE@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961129011958_772758178@emout02.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Rich, >I don't think you-know-who ever did drag. From all the times we've talked he >thinks it's very funny. > >Chuck the Hetero-heretic You bet! I have a photo! That would be some bearded lady! Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 19:26:06 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 740 Message-ID: <199611300134.UAA08809@beasley.cris.com> ---------- > From: theos-l@vnet.net > From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." > Subject: Re: Purpose of Sex - Polarity demands reunion > > > The purpose of sex is not really just to make children, or satisfy an itch, a > > hunger, > > The purpose (in a spiritual sense) of sex is indeed to create life > on the physical plane, but also other helpful processes do occur. > Yes, one can only wonder how much it has done to promote the canned whipped cream business and many other related industries. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 20:06:31 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 741 Message-ID: <199611300205.VAA19587@beasley.cris.com> ---------- > From: kymsmith@micron.net > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: Brotherhood again > > Don't get me started on the body parts. For the gadzillionth time, this > isn't a woman thing, it's an equality thing, a respect thing, a humanity > thing. And you know, when it is recognized as such, the word "brotherhood" > will be gone and replaced with something that truly emcompasses all of > humanity. When something is perceived as a "woman thing" it's much easier to > ignore - which is why it's often used as a delay tactic. > This is one of best explanations I've seen on this list. >From my own experience, there seem to be those who are sensitive to the Aquarian energies that are coming in. They begin to see the world in a different way and the way it will become. Equality will apply to race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. For those fortunate/unfortunate enough to have that vision, they want to see that vision take form. They are futurists that are pushing the envelope. And those who don't see the vision and can't figure out why things should change, are pushing back. Their mindsets are being uncomfortably joggled. It's the birth pangs of a new age. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:35:54 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sex Message-ID: <199611300245.VAA21972@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >on't people engage in sex because they ENJOY it?? >I can send condoms to those who don't wish to procreate! >Gertrude the Churchmouse > >-- Finally, someone who makes some sense! Vive la difference! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:08:50 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Intimacy vs Kids Message-ID: <329F9732.E54@worldnet.att.net> >As one who is trained in modern psychology there is no such >demonstration. For physical intimacy to be valid it must be >concordant with the agreement to have children. My sister and brother-in-law have been married for over 20 years and have not had any children. I shall inform them posthaste that any intimacy they may have shared over these years has been "invalid." Thanks so much. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:15:52 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Perfect Mahamats Message-ID: <329F98D8.766C@worldnet.att.net> > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our >true needs perfectly. I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the tip. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:28:16 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Feeding the World Message-ID: <329F9BC0.36D8@worldnet.att.net> > The planet could easily support 10-15 billion people. The current >food distribution problems and the mass problems are a result mostly of >wrong economics and the gov't manipulation of trade systems. You should take a good ecology course, my friend. When Jesus said that we will have the poor with us always, he wasn't just kidding. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:29:56 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Natural Sex Message-ID: <329F9C24.387D@worldnet.att.net> >Also when the sex impulse follows natural cycles (gradually as the >glamours about it are dissipitated) population distribution will be >naturally balanced. Yeah, about the time that Hell freezes over. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:34:01 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Scorpios Message-ID: <329F9D19.63C3@worldnet.att.net> >One has to *marry* a scorpio - which is a far bigger test than being >one. > (-:), -JRC True words, John. I am a Scorpio, so just ask my wife. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:44:54 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re The Purpose of Sex Message-ID: <329F9FA6.2686@worldnet.att.net> Just a thought on this subject: A. Crowley, whose sexual exploits are quite well known, once wrote that every sexual act is one of procreation -- that something is created every time, albeit not often physical. The very act itself is said to generate psychic offspring karmically appropriate to the thoughts and emotions of both pardners at the time. Healthy and helpful offspring are generated when thoughts and emotions are loving and compassionate, etc. Anyway, its something to think about. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Nov 96 22:26:14 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Kookie Neo-theosophy? Message-ID: <961130032613_74024.3352_BHT63-2@CompuServe.COM> Someone sent me Gregg Braden's video: AWAKENING TO ZERO POINT. I won't belabor relating the hole 4 hours but he makes some interesting points: 1. the vibration of the planet including the rotation of the earth and the magnetic fieds are changing so as to affect things like pulse rate, and other physical bodily funtions, and mental functioning. 2. Spiritual shifts are also being brought about by changes in the rotation and magnetic fields of the sun and planets 3. Relationship issues ( a big jump, but I salute him for this little discussed area in hard core theosophy) are becoming a battle ground for past karma. The people I bring into my life are not just my karmic debtors, nor are they my 'mirrors' of what is inside me (though they are that too), but they are what I judge, they are the things I hold onto as unfinished business from past lives. As I judge so am I judged by bringing people, situations and institutions into my life that will play out the court room drama on my own private court TV 4. He is somehow associated with the "MICHAEL" teachings- does this ring a bell with anyone out there 5. Much more talk about visitiors coming in - most recently on a Death Star attached to the comet Hale-Bopp. Namaste Keith PS - by the way I found out that I have shingles which has really brought me down, down, down and gives me a physcial clue as to why my nerves have been so "raw" as of late From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:42:13 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: <961129224213_1751189289@emout09.mail.aol.com> Kym writes--> Brotherhood did not "start off" as a inclusive term, a cursory look at history will prove such. Richard Ihle writes--> ~Cursory~ means "performed with haste and scant attention to detail." Kym--> Wow, are the "powers" within the TS that [enough to possibly be interested in changing THE THREE OBJECTS] sinister? R.I.--> Read for yourself about "the inner side of those declared Objects," ( The Three "AIMS") as presented by John Algeo in THE MESSENGER [Feb. 1996]. R.I.--> >My interest in this is theosophical. The point I was bringing up for >discussion is that perhaps ~even if~ there are such differences, a shift from >utilizing predominently desire-mental (kama-manas) consciousness and toward >more mental (manas) consciousness would make any putative gender differences >largely irrelevant, anyway. Kym--> Implying that women (as you did in an earlier post) are predominently desire-mental (kama-manas)and men are predominately mental (manas) is the same as saying women are emotional/thinkers and men are rational/thinkers. R.I.--> "I guess we just see what we want to see and practice what we want to practice, and interpret the literature in the way that suits us most." --Anon. Kym--> Some "interpreters" of esotericism have managed to insert a skanky side into the literature (ex: Aryan "superiority," Monad "laggards," etc.) With this and more, it is not surprising that a division of the sexes would find endorsement with some similiar juggling of esoteric wisdom. I guess we just see what we want to see and practice what we want to practice, and interpret the literature in the way that suits us most. "Know a person's god, and you will know them." R.I.--> Good points, but since it was either a writing problem of mine or a reading problem of yours which got you erroneously thinking that I was saying women were predominently desire-mental (kama-manas) and men predominently mental (manas), it might be wasted bloviation. Evelyn Woods writes--> I've got an opinion. . . . [Evelyn didn't really say this.] Kym--> Shut up, Evelyn, you over-refined gender-traitor! [Kym didn't really say this.] Kym--> Yo! Richard: You claim to walk with Blavatsky, yeah, well sometimes, I think I walk with the big shots too. R.I.--> You can walk with me any time, Babe. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Nov 29 23:07:00 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: perfected Message-ID: <199611300407.XAA06444@envirolink.org> liesel f. deutsch writes: >> The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our >>> >true needs perfectly. >>> > >Then what's the difference between the Mahatmas and the Pope? I don't see >any, as depicted here. > >Liesel I know the answer to this one! Perfection and needs are relative. IOW, what is perfect to one is imperfect to another and the needs of another are different than the needs of one. --- The Triaist If a = b and b = c, then a = c. This also means that ab = bc = ac. If you put these letters together they spell abbcac. Backwards they spell cacbba. ca = cb = ba. if c = a and c = b, then b = a. United they are ineffeble. Divided they are one. (The former is not meant to be taken as a serious philosophical statement. It was simply an awful attempt at dry humour.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Nov 29 23:10:34 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: <199611300410.XAA06622@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199611292351.QAA11058@snowden.micron.net>, >kymsmith@micron.net quotes: >>"If you see the Buddha, kill him." - Zen > >What does Zen say about Mahatmas? > >Alan [slaps wrist for *naughty* thought] *cringe*:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Nov 29 23:19:24 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Kookie Neo-theosophy? Message-ID: <199611300419.XAA07019@envirolink.org> >5. Much more talk about visitiors coming in - most recently on a Death Star >attached to the comet Hale-Bopp. Must be that little black thing they saw moving along side of it. I'm shivering already...*shrug* >Namaste >Keith >PS - by the way I found out that I have shingles which has really brought me >down, down, down and gives me a physcial clue as to why my nerves have been >so"raw" as of late *comfort* They're a real pain in the you-know-what, but they'll go away with a bit of medication and time. :) To tell you the truth, I think the thought of shingles make me shiver a little bit more than the space aliens do.:) Good luck. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 23:38:43 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Not ~Brotherhood~ Again . . . Message-ID: <961129233842_772859829@emout09.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, Back to your mousehole before Simon gets you! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Nov 96 11:57:52 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Neurpathology, Kundalini and Psychic Phenomenon Message-ID: <961130165751_74024.3352_BHT223-1@CompuServe.COM> Some have expressed concern over the mood and grandiosity of my posts. The concern may be well placed and I must take it with a little humble pie and a lot of salt over the shoulder. It seems I have a virus infection coming out of the nerve endings. Shingles is the same virus as chicken pox in the young, but not as severe since I have already had it and thus I also have some immunity. It seem anybody can get a reoccurence of this condition particullary after intense life stress. Well, the puzzel and driedel pieces are beginning to fit. For instance when I listen to music and get "goose bumps" I receive an electircal shock effect from the irritated and infected nerve endings. If I have almost any strong emtion that when tend to be felt in the body also, I again get a feeling like "fire" burning the irriated area. I also feel it it my sinuses, ears, tooth that is loose and joints to some extent. I thought I was having a kundalini experience. Oh shuckey-darn! Well, I guess I have to go back to the meditation mat another 20 years! But it is an interesting phenomenon in itself and I don't remember hearing it discussed before. It seems that if I have a strong reaction to something in my environment, I can really feel it in my body before as "bliss or a love connection" now more readily as nerve pain. It stems from heightened nerve activity due to pathogens and toxins in the body and near the synapses of the neurons (certain toxic states like delirem tremens-alcoholic DTs and lead or mecury poisoning probably have similar effects. I am thinking of THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE among other historical accounts.) Thus I felt that external things were making me feel things when in reality it was just MY own heightened sensitivity to things reflected back to me. In other words, the energy was not caused or effected by external things, but my internal reaction to external things caused me to feel it in my body and project if outward as "strange behavior" which probably did effect people ( any more and they might have put me away). But still, I would like to share that a little more has been going on. For instance, there are so many electrical devices and machines controlled by remote control, infra red ligth wave, sound vibrations, heat and who knows what else that it is easy to affect, that is to cause a change in these machines like being a conduit or "remote control device" of some kind. We are constantl being monitored by a VAST area of security devices and when these are activated, I bet I for one can tell it SOME of the time due to my the irritablity of my nerve endings (than again, maybe not, please don't send for the men with white coats yet). Thus I could feel energies in my body that most heathy people are unaware of. As a side light, many HAVE noticed that the greatest creativity of many in the 19th century happened when they were in the throws of "consumption" or TB not to mention syphyllis then called venereal disease after VENUS, somewhat to chagrin of that goddess, I am sure. Anyway, I am "comforted" strangely indeed to know that I am not going crazy EXACTLY, nor am I especially psychic or able to influence things at a distance, but I am "intrigued" and that is putting it very mildly, but the idea that we are all walking around in a see of radio and TV waves; micorwave, X, and cosmic raditation; nuclear decompostion (in our water too, no doubt); ultra and infrared remote control light; digital coding over modems and CDs; cellular phone stuff, and again who knows what else. Blessed are they they can worry about what Blavatsky had for breakfast in 1889. I don't sleep very well all the time and the answer to such important question leave me restless in Houston, waiting to exhale with a multiplicity that would make the Nutty Professor long to be an English Patient. (Looks like some good movies are coming this Xmas)! Namaste Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 12:01:46 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: <961130120146_772902195@emout16.mail.aol.com> << kymsmith@micron.net quotes: >"If you see the Buddha, kill him." - Zen Alan writes--> What does Zen say about Mahatmas? Alan [slaps wrist for *naughty* thought] Richard Ihle writes--> Close enough. Sign me up. R. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 01:15:12 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: In message <961129193452_1084768775@emout05.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Alan Bain writes--> > ><< Dear Richard, > > You *could* subscribe to the TI statement of intent without thereby > abandoning your integrity to the spirit of the three objects as > currently formulated. The Societies are not likely to change them > anyway- even though they do *not* constitute an inviolable document. So > far as TS (Adyar) is concerned the objects as written need to remain as > stated if for no other reason than that they are part of the Articles of > Incorporation ("TS Rules Adyar" on web page - in HISTORY directory I > think) and form part of the legal structure of that body. > > Alan >> > >Richard Ihle writes--> >Alan, jump in on my side against Kym and I'll join. . . . > Huh? What a strange suggestion. It has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make above. I cannot have failed to notice that you are having a discussion/debate with Kym, but it has seemed to be reasonably civilised to me - but now you are talking of "taking sides." If you really mean this, then I suspect she has more right on hers, and that suggestions of "attitude" on your part might have some foundation in fact. Sigh. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 12:59:06 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: <32A075EA.4BE1@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <199611292351.QAA11058@snowden.micron.net>, > kymsmith@micron.net quotes: > >"If you see the Buddha, kill him." - Zen > > What does Zen say about Mahatmas? "If you see a Mahatma, you don't." Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 13:02:46 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Perfect Mahamats Message-ID: <32A076C6.7074@sprynet.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > The Mahatma's are perfected human beings and understand all of our > >true needs perfectly. > > I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the tip. What puzzles me is why the Mahatmas don't know about this. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 15:01:15 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Art & Zen of HTML Message-ID: <32A0A09B.25A8@eden.com> Some of those on this maillist may be interested in the following I picked up. MKR ========================== Art and the Zen of Web Sites "Everything you know is wrong." > Inside Macintosh, 1984 "Web publishing is no more about HTML than book publishing is about type fonts." > Henri de Toulouse-LaTech "In building your web site, demonstrate your creativity by showing interesting images, saying interesting things, and making it a nice place to visit." > Vincent van Gui "Hyperlinks are the GOTOs of the '90s." > Henri de Toulouse-LaTech "Colored or textured backgrounds, weirdly colored text or links, and a preoccupation with appearance over content are sure signs of a "first generation" web site." > Pablo PigCasso "I have yet to see a web site that was made easier to understand, easier to navigate, or had a better presentation of its content because of the use of frames. In most cases, it made things worse." > L' Architecte Karp "If you only have a sparse amount of data, or if it isn't very meaningful, consider dressing it up with Netscape tables." > Henri de Toulouse-LaTech "Although art can be created with a chainsaw, this is hardly a justification for giving every would-be artist a chainsaw." > Pablo PigCasso, commenting on some of the newer "extensions" to HTML "Use the defaults, Luke. Use the defaults." > Obi-Web Kenobi "Try holding your breath for as long as it takes your home page to load." > Henri de Toulouse-LaTech "In a successful advertisement it's the graphics that grab you, but it's the text that does the selling." Pablo PigCasso "Where were you when the page was blank?" > Truman Capote What is web publishing? Putting together a web site is a unique blend of publishing, user interface design, and technology. The three main activities of visiting a web site are reading text, viewing images, and interacting with its interface. Web publishing is >not< an opportunity to show off your technical prowess. Use the technical aspect to support and enhance, but don't let it overpower the other aspects of your work. Web publishing is >not< an opportunity to show off your graphic arts skills. Use the graphical aspect to support and enhance, but don't let it overpower the other aspects of your work. Web publishing depends on an understanding of Internet science, the same way that cooking requires an understanding of food science. But when gourmets meet, they discuss the great chefs, not the great food scientists. What are the goals of your site? Is the goal to entertain, to provide information or graphics, or to provide some unique service such as an index or database? Or, perhaps, it's something completely new. If it's for a business, are you trying to attract new customers, give information about products and services, do market research, provide customer support? How does the design and implementation of your web site support your goals? For commercial sites If your site is a commercial site, most of the people who visit it will be there to get some sort of information. They won't be there for "a total web experience," or to be entertained, or for the thrill of visiting a "killer web site." They'll want to know things like: "What models are available and what do they cost?" "What are the features of your products and services?" "How can I contact your company?" "Do you have any new products or services?" "How can I get the widget I bought from your company to work properly?" "I want to see financial reports and other info." "Do you have any employment opportunities?" A commercial web site will become an important adjunct to your company and, in some cases, it will be the main way in which your customers and others interact with you in the future. When the web was young, many companies wanted to "establish a web presence" so they turned to graphic arts shops, advertising agencies, and the new crop of web design firms that were hanging out their shingles. Although these firms had a good background in graphic arts, they had little experience in the many aspects of creating web sites. They over-emphasized the graphics aspect and tried to entertain in the same way as print ads or TV commercials. However, an effective web site needs a lot more than this. It should start with a requirements definition that evaluates the real needs of the company and how they can best be served through the web. This should be followed by a careful design and planning stage. The next phase is to build the site. But, unlike a print ad or a TV commercial, a web site needs constant updating and maintenance to evolve and stay current. A lot of sites were designed in a way that made this difficult. You also have to consider the operations aspects of the site, such as guaranteeing response time and availability. Few recognized the need for web site statistics, so they didn't include them in the original plan, or design them into the site so they would give effective information. If your company is going to go to the trouble, effort, and expense of building a corporate web site, you should consider engaging the services of a systems architect before you contact the graphics companies or hire those Java programmers. An architect will plan your site as a system designed to meet your corporate goals, rather than just a bunch of interconnected HTML pages. Make your site easy to navigate. Give a lot of thought to the roadmap of your site and how its different elements are linked. How is this navigational information conveyed to the user? Could someone, after visiting your site, draw a simple diagram showing how the different elements are connected and how you get from one place to another? If someone comes to your site looking for a specific piece of information, how easy is it to locate it? How does a visitor figure out all of the things they can see or do at your site? How does a visitor figure out how to navigate your particular site? How can the visitor tell if they have seen everything? How can a visitor tell what they have and have not seen? Make it easy for a visitor to determine what is new and when things were changed. A site that is difficult to navigate will also be difficult to maintain. Complexity will limit the size of your site. Complexity will make it difficult to test your site. Some ways to generate repeat visits to your site: Make it large enough to require more than one visit to view the entire site. But make it easy to remember what the visitor has already seen. Change it often. But make it easy for the visitor to figure out what was changed, and when. Make it a source of reference material - a list, index, database. Perhaps allowing the user to search it for a particular topic or item. In the world of the web, every visitor is different Remember that there are great variations in the the computer platform, display setup, processor and disk speed, connection speed, and the particular browser software being used by each individual visitor to your web site. There will be a great variation in how your site looks to different users if you rely on fancy HTML tricks and commands. There will be a great variation in how your site looks to different users even if you don't use fancy HTML tricks and commands. You have to decide whether the goal of your site is to impress the "in crowd" with your technical razzle-dazzle, or to make it a site for the enjoyment of everyone. (Note: the "in crowd" is usually very small.) Don't create a site that only a small percentage of your visitors can view properly. As a result of heavy Internet traffic, web pages bloated with gratuitous graphics, older hardware or software, a fair number of folks a surfing the web with the graphics turned off in their browsers. What does your site look like without its graphics? You are going to lose a lot of points if you mention Netscape (or Microsoft), in any way, on the first page that your visitors see. (Unless of course, you're a Netscape employee.) This includes describing your site as "Netscape-enhanced," telling your visitors that your site is only presentable if they have the latest version of Netscape, or pointing to a site where they can download the latest version of Netscape. Think of the message that it sends about you and your site. Remember that the major online services have over 10 million paying customers. Very soon, most of them will have web browsers, but they won't be the very, very latest version of Netscape. Your pages may look very strange to them. How does your site look with Lynx? Try it to see how your site looks with a text-only viewer. This is the only viewer that the typical Unix user will have. If your site is mainly informational, don't deny access to these potential visitors. For commercial sites, there are some special considerations. For instance, you may find that a high percentage of your potential customers are using the Prodigy or the AOL web browser. They are also the ones most likely to print out your pages for later reference. The people with money to spend do not have time to fool with getting a SLIP or PPP connection running, and they don't have time to get and tune the latest version of Netscape. They will most likely be using browsers that are integrated into a full-featured online service that provides a single package with news, stock portfolio tracking, and a seamless interface to the Internet and the web. The real point is that if you have a commercial web site, you can keep Netscape around for testing, but make sure it also works with whatever browser is provided by Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserve. The user interface Consider the signal-to-noise ratio of your interface. How much is useful and interesting, and how much is just noise? Avoid using large or gratuitous graphics that don't add to the content of the page. Remember that browsers have a lot of user-configurable features -- colors, fonts,etc. These can really mess up your fancy interface. Don't make the user guess where to click. Don't replace bullets and horizontal rules with images. It eats bandwidth and confuses the user. If you use images as bullets, your visitors may try clicking on them and wonder why nothing happens. Be very careful in using graphic elements as controls. The user has to guess what to do. Try not to have two or more places to click that perform the same action. Use a white background. Try to set the background color to white using BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff". Don't forget that link tags show up in different colors than regular text, and may change color after a link is viewed. Consider how these tags will show up against a colored background. (And remember that these colors will be different on different browsers and can also be changed by the user.) You can use a shade of gray as a background if you are not displaying text against it. Use as light a shade as possible. Keep the interface uniform. Have the same controls perform the same action everywhere. Don't use colored, textured, or graphic backgrounds unless absolutely necessary. They may look fine in your browser, but could end up looking quite different in someone else's browser, or on a computer with different video hardware, color depth, etc. They're distracting, and they really do make text hard to read. Another problem with backgrounds is that they are handled differently by different browsers. On some, your page is first displayed, and then the background suddenly shows up, like a layer of smog descending on the page. With other browsers, you sit and watch a blank page until the background has been downloaded. Use color to convey information or to draw attention to areas where it's really needed. Displaying images against anything but a plain background may cause them to be rendered incorrectly by the browser. And it may make it difficult for a visitor to view them. Use the "CENTER" command for displaying graphics. Don't blink anything unless it's to indicate an emergency such as a life hazard. It annoys the hell out of some people. Don't use tricky (or undocumented) HTML to do dissolves or fades. They look different on every machine. And after a while, they can get downright annoying. And they may stop working (or work strangely) on different browsers or on new releases of your current browser. Don't have something that, when clicked on, takes the visitor back to the page they're already on. Disorienting. This is common on sites where every page has links to every page. One way to get a precise block of type, such as a name and address, to appear correctly in every browser is to render the type in an art program, then save it as an image (GIF) file. If done properly, a name-and-address block, including email and web addresses, should be about 2K bytes. This can actually be more efficient than using text if the name and address appears on several pages. (But don't forget to include a text alternate.) Don't change any of the type colors -- either for displayed text or for links. It only disorients the user. You can set large (headline) type, normally black, to a shade of gray. But not too light. Imagemaps Avoid putting imagemaps on your pages unless you have a really good reason for using them. Fancy imagemaps can be far more confusing than a well-formatted text list or a simple set of buttons. In many cases, it's hard to tell just where to click. This is especially true it the map contains both images and words. They take up a lot of bandwidth and, in most cases, add nothing to your page. If you use a large imagemap, your visitors may have to wait for well over a minute before they can begin to navigate your site. Unlike regular text links, which change color after being clicked on, imagemaps give no clue about what's been seen and what hasn't. This makes it more difficult for the user to navigate your site. Imagemaps limit you to a very simple site. It's difficult to include more than a few items in the map, especially if you are including both icons and text in the map. The time and effort it takes to modify both the image and the map make the use of imagemaps a real maintenance headache. It will take far longer to update or change your site if it means modifying the imagemaps as well. This is especially true if you have used imagemaps on many of your pages. If you use an imagemap, make sure that you include a text list with identical items for those who are confused by your map or are using a browser where images are not being loaded. Locate this alternative list as close to the imagemap as possible to avoid confusion. Make sure that the list contains all the items on the map, and that they are in the same order. If your imagemap is a figure that depicts something real, like a map of the United States, don't assume that your visitors will be able to identify things (Which one is Nevada?) solely by their shape or location. Also, make sure that your imagemap gives some sort of a warning if the visitor clicks in an area that doesn't relate to anything or isn't defined in the map's table. (What happens if the visitor clicks in the ocean, next to California?) Your page's title Don't forget to put a title on every one of your web pages. The title is what shows up at the top of the browser's window when a page is displayed. If your page doesn't have a title, the browser will display "Untitled," or "No Title, " or simply the URL of the page. The title is important. If someone bookmarks your page, the title is what shows up in their list of bookmarks. Or, if someone puts a link to your site on their page, they'll probably use your page title as the link text. Or, if the page is indexed by a search engine, the title is what shows up in the search results. You get the picture. Even if you do have titles on your pages you still might want to reevaluate the actual wording. Make sure that the title actually says something. Instead of "My Web Page," how about "John Jones -- My Web page?" Imagine viewing the two of them in a bookmark list. If you have a business site, you may want to go even further. For instance, you may want to put the name of your business (or an abbreviation) in the title of every page on your site. You never know which of your pages will be bookmarked, and it will be far easier to pick you out in a list of bookmarks, or any other list that uses the page's title. A Tip Keep your home/main page small so that it loads quickly -- under 15 seconds is a goal worth aiming for. (Especially important when the web slows down.) This will hook the visitor. Think twice about putting that 90K GIF on your home page. Remember that yours is only one of millions of sites -- websurfers have short attention spans. Standalone Images The most common use of standalone images is on a page with a lot of little images where clicking on one of them loads a larger version. If you just link to the image file, it ends up in the upper left corner of the page, all by itself. Use an HTML page to hold the image. This will let you center the picture and put in a title and other information. Images Don't use interlaced GIFs. These give the effect of the image being continuously redrawn at a higher and higher resolution. The effect is annoying and it's hard to tell when the picture is actually ready to be viewed. It's especially annoying when used to render fine artwork. It's also annoying when the the web is slow and the image sits half-rendered for a period of time. It's just another special effect that will soon be boring. Don't use an image compression technique that isn't supported by all browsers. At the present time, GIF may not be the best method, but it is the right one. (Choosy web site builders choose GIF.) Also, a JPEG image may compress to a smaller file than a GIF, taking less time to download, but it will probably take longer to decompress and display, thus making your effort for naught. This is especially true on older, slower machines. JPEG compression also imposes a loss of image quality, which may (depending on the settings in your image-conversion program, and your visitor's hardware) be quite noticeable. For each image, try both compression techniques and see which gives the smallest file size, the best image quality, and the best performance in downloading and viewing. (For some images, the GIF may actually be smaller than the JPEG.) Animated Images Please, please, please don't put animated images on your page. They're the closest thing the web has to computer viruses. They make the page load slower -- they use much bigger files, and the animation itself slows down the loading of the rest of the page, especially on slower machines. They cause the page to load improperly -- the little red light on the browser doesn't go out, so there's no way to tell if the page has finished loading. If the visitor clicks the 'Stop' button, it may turn out that the page hasn't fully loaded, so it has to be loaded again. They can also keep you from being able to scroll the page while it's loading. They're distracting, making it harder for the visitor to concentrate on the other things on your page. If you switch to another application, the browser sits in the background, chewing up processor cycles doing animation. The images run at different speeds, depending on the visitor's hardware -- crawling on slower machines, and flickering between images on fast machines. When you move the cursor over a link (without clicking), the browser's status line is supposed to show where the link will take you. If an animated image is running, this information will be lost. In fact all status information (except what the animated image is doing) will be lost. And lastly, a number of folks have reported browser crashes on leaving a page that had an animated image. When the browser crashes, it can mess up things like the browser's history list, tables of cached items, and your bookmarks file. Suggestion for the browser manufacturers: How about adding an option to turn these things off? Text If you're presenting text documents on your pages, give some thought to making them easy to read. The viewing area of your browser is much smaller than a normal printed page, so you may have to reformat your documents to fit this new environment, rather than just dropping an existing document into your HTML editor. Don't run text the full width of the screen. This creates long lines of text that are difficult to read. Text also needs air around it, to breathe. That's why most printed documents have margins. You can easily solve these problems by using the 'Blockquote' tag, which gives a margin on both sides of the page. You can nest Blockquotes to vary the width as necessary. You can use use dictionary lists ('DL') as a simple way of formatting text that requires indentation. Don't use long paragraphs of text. It's hard to read these in printed form and, for some reason, even harder on to read on a computer screen. Try to keep paragraphs to four sentences or less. And never put a link in your text, especially in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. If you have links that relate to your text, put them at the end, like footnotes. Give your visitors a chance to read your text before sending them somewhere else. Java Applets A lot of people are learning how to program in Java and JavaScript. Most of their early efforts seem to be some form of nonstop, repetitive animation that is both annoying and distracting. Some applets keep the page from loading or scrolling properly. One popular applet overwrites the browser's status display at the bottom of the window, keeping you from viewing the destinations of the links as you move the cursor over them. It also keeps you from seeing the startus of the current page as it is loading. If you are developing Java applets, you may wish to wait until you have something more worthwhile before inflicting your early efforts on unsuspecting visitors. Frames Don't use frames just to show that you know how to use frames. Your web page is small to begin with, and carving it up with frames can reduce the usable area to a tiny fraction of the screen. Many visitors will have browsers that can't see frames, so you'll have to maintain two versions of your site. Don't build your site around frames. It makes it difficult to navigate and limits you to having a very simple site. The cursor keys don't work unless you click in the frame you want to scroll, and the browser's 'Back' button may produce unexpected results. And there's also a good chance that a visitor's attempt to print out your page will end in failure. And an interesting surprise awaits the visitor who tries to bookmark one of the pages within your site. And you may get unexpected results when a search engine indexes your site. Visitors who come to one of your pages from a search engine won't be entering through the site's front door and won't see the frame that would normally be holding the page. One possible use for frames is if you have a report where you want to lock the row or column titles so they don't scroll off the screen. "Friends don't let friends use frames." > Vincent van Gui Hard Copy What do the pages on your site look like when they are printed out? Try it. You may be in for a surprise. You might want hard copy because it makes it easier to design and edit your pages. Just like an advertising layout. It gives co-workers and customers a way to view and comment on your pages. You can build a portfolio of your work to use in sales presentations or for advertising. Your visitors can print out a hard copy of the information on your site for later reference. If you have a lot of browser-specific code, such as textured or graphic backgrounds, these may not print out. If your page has a black or colored background, it may not print properly. If your page uses frames, it probably won't print correctly. But the biggest surprise awaits those whose ultra-chic pages have black or dark backgrounds with white or light-colored text. Testing Test your pages with several different browsers. You will be amazed at the variations in interpreting even the simplest HTML tags. Make sure you try your pages with the browsers provided by major online services such as Prodigy and AOL. Test all your pages after making even trivial changes to your site, just to make sure you haven't broken something. (Programmers know that you're far more likely to introduce an error when making changes than when the original work was done.) Make sure that you test your pages in a way that forces the browser to get everything -- both text and images. This means turning off the caching, emptying the cache from within the browser, or deleting all the files in the browser's cache directory. This will force the browser to get everything from scratch, and you'll see how long your pages really take to load. You'll also see how long the browser hangs there with a blank screen before something shows up. Now go to your browser's options dialog and make it so that the page always has a white background and the links are their default colors (blue and red). A lot of people will have their browsers set this way to avoid viewing weird backgrounds or strangely-colored links. How does your page look with these settings? Turn on the "don't load images" menu item, or checkbox in your browsers option settings. How does your page look without its images? Is it still possible to find your way around? If your page is blessed with a Java or JavaScript widget, what happens when you look at it with a browser that doesn't support Java. What about a Java-enabled browser with Java turned off ? If your page needs a special plug-in, or a special helper application, or uses a special file type, test to see what happens if one or more is missing or not supported. It might be enough to make Netscape toss its cookies. Have other people test your web site. Pay attention when someone tells you they had trouble viewing your site. For every person who takes the time and trouble to write to you, there are many more who will give up in frustration. About HTML The easiest way to learn HTML is by studying the source from other people's pages. Most browsers will get the HTML source for the page you're looking at. It's also a good way to learn what makes bad pages bad. Be careful about using new or specialized HTML features. They may not be upward compatible with the newer browsers or new versions of HTML. Use the absolutely smallest set of HTML that will do the job. Make this something you can brag about, rather than how you mastered the fancy commands. Don't use undocumented HTML effects to do things such as dissolves or fades. This may stop working in the next release of the particular browser you're designing it for, and my cause some other browsers to function incorrectly. Never forget that HTML is not a page description language or page formatting language. It is for displaying informat From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 15:11:29 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Art & Zen of HTML Message-ID: <32A0A301.76D3@eden.com> the msg I just posted on the subject was from the following url: http://www.tlc-systems.com/webtips.shtml and is their copyrighted material. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 16:50:06 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <961130165005_1985304662@emout17.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle writes--> >Alan, jump in on my side against Kym and I'll join. . . . Alan writes--> Huh? What a strange suggestion. It has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make above. I cannot have failed to notice that you are having a discussion/debate with Kym, but it has seemed to be reasonably civilised to me - but now you are talking of "taking sides." If you really mean this, then I suspect she has more right on hers, and that suggestions of "attitude" on your part might have some foundation in fact. R.I.--> Alan, please put a HOLD on my sign-up order while I do some deeper soul-searching on any possible attitudes I have which may not be consonant with TI's statements of purpose etc. I thought I agreed with them all, but who knows? Certainly, the "jump in on my side" was meant humorously and merely trying to play off of Kym's earlier semi-remonstrations to the other women on the list for not jumping into the gender-fray more vigorously (with the guy who left with a rash and a pierced testicle)--as if one twitch of the clit and the women were supposed to form-up behind her like a Roman legion. . . . --See! I probably just did it again with the "clit" remark: On the surface it may just look like I am willing to follow her lead to whatever level of informality (Yo! Richard) or body part she wants to descend to; however, beneath the surface it may be indicative of some far deeper attitude problem on my part which needs to be corrected. However, one attitude I know I have but for sure won't change and that is that I hate bullies, especially ones who make their special prey other people who are less aggressive and more polite than they are. In my opinion the history of Theos-l is nothing if not the continuing record of the driving-off of the more meek and courteous. Many of these people had much to offer; more than a few left, I believe, not because they were intellectually or theosophically inferior, but simply because they were unwilling to "do what was necessary" to win arguments here. So anyway, I brought up the ~brotherhood~ discussion again because I honestly felt that there may be something hidden within this illogical language situation (in particular, why it was not challenged for so long by egalitarians of both genders) which could reveal something about "psychogenetics" (the progessive maturation of the incarnation-embrangled "I AM.") The result, unfortunately, was not a stuffy, pleasant-to-a-few, theosophical discussion or a request to explain myself further, but rather, a "plug-and-play," pre-formatted, extended accusation of "sexism (or maybe worse)" At this point I had a choice to make: 1) drop the subject because it might get messy, knowing from Kym's previous writing that she more or less gives herself permission to say what she wants (and there is a picture of me floating around somewhere which she might sooner or later make a comentary on), or 2) hang in there and "do what was necessary" (the ~Duh!'s-plus-one). Now, you can judge for youself by my writing conduct of the last couple years: my normal course of action would have been choice #1 for sure. Want to know what made me go for #2? I hesitate to tell you because it is something seemingly unrelated and may get me in even hotter water with the rest of the list: I was bothered by the big "gang-up" on Patrick for his "Purpose of Sex" position. Here is another gentle-sounding guy, or at least he seems so to me, who has the misfortune of having an unpopular point of view. While I don't agree with him either, there is something troubling about seeing so many people all on his case at the same time. I thought to myself, "Richard, go ahead with this Kym thing, and maybe it will divert a few people." So I did. Well, Alan, I gave up long ago the notion that I could make myself understood on theosophical subjects, so I am not dismayed on that score. Today, however, I cross a much more lamentable threshold: the realization that even my jokes are becoming unrecognizable. I am the twighlight Richard Ihle for sure. . . . Godspeed. . . .